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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2020 17:45:36 +0200 From: René Rebe <rene@...ctcode.com> To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Vectored syscalls Was: [PATCH 0/3] readfile(2): a new syscall to make open/read/close faster Hey, > On 8. Jul 2020, at 17:38, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 08, 2020 at 05:16:41PM +0200, René Rebe wrote: >> Hey there, >> >> maybe instead of this rather specific, niche readfile syscall, would it not be beneficial >> to allow issuing any group or bundle of several arbitrary system calls so this could also >> be used to speed up other, more demanding high performance applications that need >> a bit more than just readfile()? > > Why not just use io_uring for that for I/O calls, that's what it is > designed for. Sure, but last time I check you can’t queue open, read, close like this ;-) > More "generic" syscall batching always ends up falling down in > complexity anytime anyone tries it. Good luck! Well, given latest hardware security vulnerabilities it looks more useful for real world applications than the very special case of just readfile(2) for small to medium sized files, … any maybe more worth the effort of a new system call. René -- ExactCODE GmbH, Lietzenburger Str. 42, DE-10789 Berlin, https://exactcode.com https://exactscan.com | https://ocrkit.com | https://t2sde.org | https://rene.rebe.de
Powered by blists - more mailing lists