lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Feb]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [RFC/PATCH] revokeat/frevoke system calls V5
Date
On Feb 26, 2007, at 13:46:21, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>>> I'm not sure. Turning, for example, the statat(dir_fd, name ==
>>> NULL) error case into fstat(dir_fd) sounds like a way for apps,
>>> admittedly buggy ones, to be surprised. Maybe libc would be
>>> exptected to catch the error before performing the shared system
>>> call?
>> At that point would it not be cheaper to have two system calls,
>> the table cost isn't very large.
>
> It's not just the table, though, you need two entry points, but
> even that isn't really all that big either, I guess.

Well, I suppose there are multiple possibilities for consolidation:
frevokeat(fd, "/foo/bar/baz") => normal frevokeat
frevokeat(-1, "/foo/bar/baz") => revoke("/foo/bar/baz");
frevokeat(fd, NULL) => frevoke(fd);

Neither of those would ordinarily be considered to do anything useful
and for new syscalls I can't see the possibility of breaking existing
programs. On the other hand, it's not like we have any problems with
the syscall tables getting too large.

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-02-26 22:39    [W:0.038 / U:0.692 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site