Re: [PATCHv4 0/6] sys_indirect system call

[Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>]

Ulrich Drepper a écrit :
> wing patches provide an alternative implementation of the
> sys_indirect system call which has been discussed a few times.
> This no system call allows us to extend existing system call
> interfaces with adding more system calls.

I am wondering if some parts are missing from your ChangeLog

You apparently added in v3 a new 'flags' parameter to indirect syscall but no 
trace of this change in Changelog, and why it was added. This seems to imply a 
future multiplexor.

And no change in the test program reflecting this 'flags' new param, so it fails.


>   fd = syscall (__NR_indirect, &r, &i, sizeof (i));

should be fd = syscall (__NR_indirect, &r, &i, sizeof (i), 0);

>   int s2 = fcntl (fd, F_GETFD);
>   int t2 = fcntl (fd, F_GETFL);
>   printf ("new: FD_CLOEXEC %s set, NONBLOCK %s set\n",
> 	  s2 == 0 ? "not" : "is", (t2 & O_NONBLOCK) ? "is" : "not");
>   close (fd);
> 
>   i.file_flags.flags = O_CLOEXEC;
>   sigset_t ss;
>   sigemptyset(&ss);
>   FILL_IN(r, __NR_signalfd, -1, (long) &ss, 8);
>   fd = syscall (__NR_indirect, &r, &i, sizeof (i));

same here ?

>   int s3 = fcntl (fd, F_GETFD);
>   printf ("signalfd: FD_CLOEXEC %s set\n", s3 == 0 ? "not" : "is");
>   close (fd);
> 
>   FILL_IN(r, __NR_eventfd, 8);
>   fd = syscall (__NR_indirect, &r, &i, sizeof (i));

and here.

>   int s4 = fcntl (fd, F_GETFD);
>   printf ("eventfd: FD_CLOEXEC %s set\n", s4 == 0 ? "not" : "is");
>   close (fd);
> 
>   return s1 != 0 || s2 == 0 || t1 != 0 || t2 == 0 || s3 == 0 || s4 == 0;
> }
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~