From: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@redhat.com>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-aio@kvack.org
Subject: Re: async-io API registration for 2.5.29
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 12:59:43 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020730125943.B10315@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20020730164320.GH1181@dualathlon.random>; from andrea@suse.de on Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 06:43:20PM +0200
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 06:43:20PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> >
> > Please don't. First Ben has indicated on kernel summit that the abi might
> > change and I think it's a bad idea to lock him into the old ABI just because
>
> What I heard and that I remeber crystal clear is that Ben indicated that
> the API isn't changing for a long time, and that's been stable so far,
> I could imagine why.
I suspect what Christoph is remember is that the in-kernel API was still
in flux and up for discussion.
> I'm trying to do my best to avoid having to merge the code I quoted
> above, that's disgusting and since the api isn't gonna change anwyays
> like Ben said I'm trying to do the right thing to avoid clashes with
> syscall 250 as well.
syscall 250 isn't used in anything Red Hat shipped, that was a matter
of experimentation I was doing in recent aio development trees (which
is what the 2.4.18 patches are, as they still cause that VM to OOM under
rather trivial io patterns).
> Really last thing: one of the major reasons I don't like the above code
> besides the overhead and complexity it introduces is that it doesn't
> guarantee 100% that it will be forward compatible with 2.5 applications
> (the syscall 250 looks not to check even for the payload, I guess they
> changed it because it was too slow to be forward compatible in most
> cases), the /dev/urandom payload may match the user arguments if you're
> unlucky and since we can guarantee correct operations by doing a syscall
> registration, I don't see why we should make it work by luck.
You haven't looked at the code very closely then. It checks that the
payload matches, and that the caller is coming from the vsyscall pages.
Yes, the dynamic syscall thing is a horrific kludge that shouldn't be
used, but the vsyscall technique is rather useful. This is something
that x86-64 gets wrong by not requiring the vsyscall page to need an
mmap into the user's address space: UML cannot emulate vsyscalls by
faking the mmap.
-ben
--
"You will be reincarnated as a toad; and you will be much happier."
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-07-30 16:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 83+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-07-30 5:41 async-io API registration for 2.5.29 Andrea Arcangeli
2002-07-30 8:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2002-07-30 13:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-07-30 13:52 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2002-07-30 16:43 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-07-30 16:59 ` Benjamin LaHaise [this message]
2002-07-30 19:10 ` Jeff Dike
2002-07-30 18:09 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2002-07-30 18:15 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-07-30 18:31 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2002-07-30 20:57 ` Jeff Dike
2002-07-30 20:47 ` Jeff Dike
2002-07-30 21:26 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-07-30 10:50 ` Rik van Riel
2002-07-30 12:49 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2002-07-30 13:29 ` Suparna Bhattacharya
2002-07-30 21:41 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-07-30 21:54 ` [rfc] aio-core for 2.5.29 (Re: async-io API registration for 2.5.29) Benjamin LaHaise
2002-07-31 0:44 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-07-31 14:46 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2002-07-31 16:31 ` Charles 'Buck' Krasic
2002-08-01 10:30 ` Pavel Machek
2002-08-01 14:47 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2002-08-01 15:00 ` Chris Friesen
2002-08-01 16:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-08-01 17:30 ` Alan Cox
2002-08-01 16:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-08-01 16:41 ` [rfc] aio-core for 2.5.29 (Re: async-io API registration for2.5.29) Chris Friesen
2002-08-01 18:01 ` [rfc] aio-core for 2.5.29 (Re: async-io API registration for 2.5.29) Benjamin LaHaise
2002-08-15 23:54 ` aio-core why not using SuS? [Re: [rfc] aio-core for 2.5.29 (Re: async-io API registration for 2.5.29)] Andrea Arcangeli
2002-08-16 1:42 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2002-08-16 1:57 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-08-16 2:00 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2002-08-16 2:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-08-16 2:16 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2002-08-16 2:40 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-08-16 3:43 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-08-16 3:50 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-08-16 4:47 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-08-17 3:46 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-08-17 4:00 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-08-17 4:15 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-08-17 4:46 ` Linus Torvalds
2001-11-02 5:12 ` Pavel Machek
2002-08-17 5:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-08-17 5:24 ` lots of mem on 32 bit machines (was: aio-core why not using SuS?) Martin J. Bligh
2002-08-17 5:12 ` aio-core why not using SuS? [Re: [rfc] aio-core for 2.5.29 (Re: async-io API registration for 2.5.29)] Martin J. Bligh
2002-08-17 17:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-08-17 21:27 ` 32 bit arch with lots of RAM Martin J. Bligh
2002-08-22 16:30 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-08-22 16:36 ` Martin J. Bligh
2002-08-22 16:15 ` aio-core why not using SuS? [Re: [rfc] aio-core for 2.5.29 (Re: async-io API registration for 2.5.29)] Andrea Arcangeli
2002-08-22 16:12 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-08-20 0:35 ` Ingo Molnar
2002-08-17 4:36 ` William Lee Irwin III
2002-08-16 2:32 ` Rik van Riel
2002-08-16 2:32 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-08-16 9:39 ` Suparna Bhattacharya
2002-08-16 10:03 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-08-16 11:23 ` Suparna Bhattacharya
2002-08-16 11:28 ` Suparna Bhattacharya
2002-08-16 13:49 ` Dan Kegel
2002-09-02 18:40 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-09-03 12:04 ` aio-core in 2.5 - io_queue_wait and io_getevents Suparna Bhattacharya
2002-09-05 5:21 ` aio-core why not using SuS? [Re: [rfc] aio-core for 2.5.29 (Re: async-io API registration for 2.5.29)] Benjamin LaHaise
2002-08-16 13:43 ` Dan Kegel
2002-08-16 14:21 ` Jamie Lokier
2002-08-16 14:42 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2002-08-16 15:40 ` John Gardiner Myers
2002-08-23 16:11 ` aio-core why not using SuS? [Re: [rfc] aio-core for 2.5.29 (Re:async-io " Dan Kegel
2002-08-16 1:53 ` aio-core why not using SuS? [Re: [rfc] aio-core for 2.5.29 (Re: async-io " Dan Kegel
2002-08-01 19:18 ` [rfc] aio-core for 2.5.29 (Re: async-io API registration for 2.5.29) Chris Wedgwood
2002-08-01 19:25 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-08-01 19:31 ` Chris Wedgwood
2002-08-02 8:24 ` Pavel Machek
2002-08-02 11:59 ` Alan Cox
2002-08-02 15:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-07-31 1:20 ` async-io API registration for 2.5.29 Rik van Riel
2002-07-31 1:32 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-07-31 8:25 ` Christoph Hellwig
2002-07-31 13:19 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-07-30 13:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-07-30 16:49 ` Andrea Arcangeli
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20020730125943.B10315@redhat.com \
--to=bcrl@redhat.com \
--cc=andrea@suse.de \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-aio@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@transmeta.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox