Re: A better interface, perhaps: a timed signal flag

[Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>]

On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 09:33:26AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> What you could have is this:
> 
>   volatile int *flag;
> 
>   register_timeout(&time_val, &flag);
>   while (work_to_do()) {
> 	do_a_bit_of_work();
> 	if (*flag)
> 		break;
>   }
> 
> Where the kernel would register a location to set a timeout with, and
> the kernel would setup a flag for you and then map it into userspace.
> Perhaps only allow one flag per task and place it as a field of the task
> structure.  There's no reason that the tasks own task sturct cant be
> mapped read only to user space, is there?

Good point, and limiting this facility to one such timeout per
task_struct seems like a reasonable restriction.  The downsides I can
see about about mapping the tasks' own task struct would be (a) a
potential security leak either now or in the future if some field in
the task_struct shouldn't be visible to a non-privileged userspace
program, and (b) exposing the task_struct might cause some (stupid)
programs to depend on the task_struct layout.  Allocating an otherwise
empty 4k page just for this purpose wouldn't be all that horrible,
though, and would avoid these potential problems.

							- Ted
-
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/