lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: More documentation: system call how-to
Hi Ulrich,


On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, Ulrich Drepper wrote:

> How about adding the attached text to the Documentation directory? I
> had to correct over the years to one or the other system call design
> problems. Other problems couldn't be corrected anymore and we have to
> live with them. Maybe spelling out the rules explicitly will help a bit.

Most definitely, but going through the list below, I could think of
maybe several more little things that people tend to forget when actually
/implementing/ the system call (and not necessarily the abstract level
design decisions such as argument(s) and sizes).


> I've added a few rules I could think of right now. What should be
> added as well is a rule for 64-bit parameters on 32-bit platforms. I
> leave this to the s390 people who have the biggest restrictions when
> it comes to this.

Yes, that must definitely be spelt out clearly, probably with examples
of how to do it right.

Another thing that's a must when designing a syscall would be thinking
of any security implications that it brings about and clearly spelling
out expected behaviour in all cases -- security could mean different
things for different syscalls, but just getting that word in here would
mean people don't make basic mistakes like introducing "xxx_set_xxx"
kind of syscalls that go ahead and modify kernel/global structures
without authors having even thought of how and why that's wrong.

Other than that, as I said above, probably what we also need is a
"system call implementation checklist" of some sort, which lists out the
basic things (copying buffers from/to userspace, various security checks,
other things I'm not recollecting currently) and how to get them right.


> Signed-off-by: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@redhat.com>
>
> Rules for designing new system calls
> ------------------------------------
>
> 1. Do not use multiplexing system calls.
>
> A practical argument is that it invariably reduces the number of
> available parameters to the system call which will haunt people who
> have to care about architectures with a limited set of registers
> reserved for this purpose.
>
> Another aspect is that it is most likely slower. The caller in
> most cases knows exactly which sub-function of the system call is
> needed. If the decision about the sub-function is dynamic the
> computation of the code could just as well be a computation of a
> system call number. The difference lies in the kernel where the
> multiplexing always has to happen, even if the required
> sub-function is known to the caller ahead of time.
>
> Adding new system calls is much cheaper: it is a word in a table.
> This is much less code and data than the switch statement or
> if-cascade needed to implement the multiplexer.
>
> Bad examples: sys_socketcall on x86, sys_futex, and several more
>
>
> 2. Use of ENOSYS:
>
> The runtime has to be able to distinguish non-existing system calls
> due to old kernel versions from error conditions in an implemented
> system call. This means the ENOSYS error should never be used in
> an error condition once a system call is implemented.
>
> Example: In sys_fallocate, if the file system does not implement the
> fallocate operation, return EOPNOTSUPP and not ENOSYS.
>
> There is one exception to the rule: if rule #1 is violated and a
> multiplexer system call is used, invalid sub-function codes should
> be signaled using ENOSYS.
>
> Example: sys_futex
^^^

Probably makes sense to prefix "sad" or "unfortunate" here.

> 3. Choose parameters for growth
>
> It makes today no sense anymore to implement any system call which
> restricts even on 32-bit machines the size of values indicating
> file sizes or offsets to 32-bits. 64-bit values should be used
> throughout.
>
> Example: sys_fadvise64, which should have been defined from day 1
> like sys_fadvise64_64.

Again, this is a "bad" example.

> Similarly, timeout granularity of seconds is not suitable anymore.
> Most interfaces use nano-second resolution and a often used way
> to specify such times and intervals is using the timespec structure.


Satyam
-
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: 2007-08-01 20:41    [W:0.050 / U:8.336 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site