Re: RFC: A revised timerfd API

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sat, Sep 22, 2007 at 06:07:14PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
On 9/22/07, Bernd Eckenfels <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]> you wrote:
>  1. This design stretches the POSIX timers API in strange
>     ways.

Maybe it is possible to reimplement the POSIX API in usermode using the
kernel's FD implementation?

It's a clever idea...  Without thinking on it too long, I'm not sure
whether or not there might be some details which would make this
difficult.

It seems to be a dangerous idea. It has the potential of breaking userspace applications that rely on POSIX timers not creating fd's.

Image code like this:

	/* Close stdin, stdout, stderr */
	close(0);
	close(1);
	close(2);

	/* Oh, a timer would be nice */
	timer_create(x, y, z);

	/* Create new stdin, stdout, stderr */
	fd = open("/dev/null", flags);
	dup(fd);
	dup(fd);

Unless timer_create does some magic to avoid using the lowest available fd, this would suddenly break as the timerfd would be fd 0.

--
David Härdeman
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux