linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 31/31] aio: implement io

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180110081157.GA9659@lst.de>
Date:   Wed, 10 Jan 2018 09:11:57 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Avi Kivity <avi@...lladb.com>, linux-aio@...ck.org,
        Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        y2038 Mailman List <y2038@...ts.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 31/31] aio: implement io_pgetevents

On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 11:16:16PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Hmm, these two new syscall entry points turn into four when we add in
> support for 64-bit time_t, as we'd have to support all combinations of 32/64
> bit aio_context_t and time_t.

At least they'll also replace plain old io_getevents :)

> Would it be better to start this interface out by defining it using a 64-bit
> timeout structure? The downside would be that the user space syscall
> wrappers have to start out with a conversion, if we don't do it, then
> the opposite conversion would have to get added later.

Which structure do you want?  In the end applications using libaio
or even the syscalls directly (like seastar) are a special bread, so
they could probably just deal with whatever structure we want to pass.