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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
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