Re: [1/1][PATCH] nproc v2: netlink access to /proc information

[William Lee Irwin III]

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 08:37:58 -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> No, in general races of the form "permissions were altered after I
>> checked them" can happen.

On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 06:01:50PM +0200, Roger Luethi wrote:
> Can you make an example? Some scenario where this would be important?

Not particularly. It largely means poorly-coded apps may report gibberish.


On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 08:37:58 -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> Checking that system calls succeeded is a minimum requirement at all
>> times. Misinterpreting error returns is the app's fault.

On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 06:01:50PM +0200, Roger Luethi wrote:
> It's async. You can't rely on return values. They'd have to be in
> netlink messages.

That's fine. Do these error messages specify which field access(es)
caused the error?


On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 08:37:58 -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> Irritating. That must mean you can't ask for specific fields.

On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 06:01:50PM +0200, Roger Luethi wrote:
> How so? For process fields, the request block is one u32 indicating the
> number of field IDs to follow, then a bunch of u32 containing field IDs.
> Any subset of field IDs, in any order of the tool's choosing.
> The kernel replies with one message per process, each message containing
> all the fields the tool requested, in the same order.

Then assuming the error messages indicate which field access(es) caused
the error(s), you're already done; userspace must merely retry the
request with the offending fields cast out. Otherwise, you're still
done: userspace can merely retry the field accesses one at a time
(though it's nicer to say which ones caused the errors).


On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 08:37:58 -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> Well, "return this set of fields" means there's only one type of
>> request necessary, and userspace merely iterates through the subsets
>> obtained by striking out fields to which accesses caused errors until
>> either the set is empty or the call succeeds. One field at a time at
>> all times also means there's only one type of request necessary. So I

On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 06:01:50PM +0200, Roger Luethi wrote:
> One field at a time at all times is unnecessarily slow.

Yes, that was the "slower and stupider than thou" option. You've
already vectorized field access requests, of which I heartily approve.


-- wli
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/