lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC] syscalls, x86: Add __NR_kcmp syscall
    Date
    "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> writes:

    > On 01/17/2012 06:44 AM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
    >> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 04:38:14PM +0200, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
    >>> On 1/17/12, Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com> wrote:
    >>>> +#define KCMP_EQ 0
    >>>> +#define KCMP_LT 1
    >>>> +#define KCMP_GT 2
    >>>
    >>> LT and GT are meaningless.
    >>>
    >>
    >> I found symbolic names better than open-coded values. But sure,
    >> if this is problem it could be dropped.
    >>
    >> Or you mean that in general anything but 'equal' is useless?
    >>
    >
    > Why on Earth would user space need to know which order in memory certain
    > kernel objects are?

    For checkpoint restart and for some other kinds of introspection what is
    needed is a comparison function to see if two processes share the same
    object. The most interesting of these objects from a checkpoint restart case
    are file descriptors, and there can be a lot of file descriptors.

    The order in memory does not matter. What does matter is that the
    comparison function return some ordering between objects. The algorithm
    for figuring out of N items which of them are duplicates is O(N^2) if
    the comparison function can only return equal or not equal. The
    algorithm for finding duplications is only O(NlogN) if the comparison
    function will return an ordering among the objects.

    > Keep in mind that this is *exactly* the kind of information which makes
    > rootkits easier.

    I would be very surprised if basic in memory ordering information was
    not already available from simple creation ordering.

    If using the in memory ordering is a problem in practice there are a lot
    of other possible ways to order the kernel objects. Allocating sequence
    numbers for the kernel objects, passing the pointers through a
    cryptographically secure hash before comparing them, etc.

    It does look like Cyrill's patch description lacked the important bit of
    information about the algorithm complexity requiring an ordering among
    kernel objects. Cyrill you probably want to describe more prominently
    what is happening now and why in your patch description rather than give
    the history of different approaches.

    Eric


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-01-17 22:35    [W:0.029 / U:2.472 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site