Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:51:14 -0800 | From | Jay Lan <> | Subject | Re: [patch 1/2] fork_connector: add a fork connector |
| |
Ram wrote: > On Tue, 2005-03-22 at 11:22, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > >>On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:26:19 -0800 >>Ram <linuxram@us.ibm.com> wrote: >> >> >>>On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 23:07, Guillaume Thouvenin wrote: >>> >>>>On Mon, 2005-03-21 at 12:52 -0800, Ram wrote: >>>> >>>>> If a bunch of applications are listening for fork events, >>>>> your patch allows any application to turn off the >>>>> fork event notification? Is this the right behavior? >>>> >>>>Yes it is. The main management is done by application so, if several >>>>applications are listening for fork events you need to choose which one >>>>will turn off the fork connector. >>>> >>>>I want to keep this turn on/off mechanism simple but if it's needed I >>>>can manage the variable "cn_fork_enable" as a counter. Thus the callback >>>>could be something like: >>>> >>>>static void cn_fork_callback(void *data) >>>>{ >>>> int start; >>>> struct cn_msg *msg = (struct cn_msg *)data; >>>> >>>> if (cn_already_initialized && (msg->len == sizeof(cn_fork_enable))) { >>>> memcpy(&start, msg->data, sizeof(cn_fork_enable)); >>>> if (start) >>>> cn_fork_enable++; >>>> else >>>> cn_fork_enable > 0 ? cn_fork_enable-- : 0; >>>> } >>>>} >>> >>>I think a better way is: >>> >>> Providing a different connector channel called the administrator >>> channel which can be used only by a super-user, and gives you >>> the ability to switch on or off any connector channel including the >>> fork-connector channel. >> >>Only super-user can bind netlink socket to multicast group. > > > ok. I did not realize that. > > >>> For lack of better term I am using the word 'channel' to mean >>> something that carries events of particular type through the >>> connector-infrastructure. >> >>I still do not see why it is needed. >>Super-user can run ip command and turn network interface off >>not waiting while apache or named exits or unbind. >> >>In theory I can create some kind of userspace registration mechanism, >>when userspace application reports it's pid to the connector, >>and then it sends data to the specified pids, but does not >>allow controlling from userspace. >>But I really do not think it is a good idea to permit >>non-priviledged userspace processes to know about deep >>kernel internals through connector's messages. > > > Yes. non-priviledged userspace processes should not know > any deep kernel internals through connector events. > > I think what I am driving at is, an application that is critically > dependent on the fork-notification, suddenly stops receiving such > notification because some other application has switched off the > service without its notice. > > the reason I am concerned is I am planning to feed this fork-events > to my in-kernel module. Side note: I would really like support for > in-kernel listners through connector infrastructure.
Listners in the kernel? Sound like a PAGG thing again!
Guillaume's stuff was originally an in-kernel module. CSA/Job are kernel modules also. We all use hook management feature of PAGG, which offer event notification to other kernel components.
Guillaume moved to connector approach and i am moving to that direction too because Andrew likes to see in-kernel modules moved to user space.
It is kind of funny to see someone trying to get a notification through a connector and then feed it back to the kernel! This does not sound right to me!
- jay
> > RP > > >>>RP >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>What do you think about this implementation? >>>> >>>>Guillaume >>>> >> >> >> Evgeniy Polyakov >> >>Only failure makes us experts. -- Theo de Raadt
- 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/
| |