Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 25 Nov 1999 10:28:18 +0100 (CET) | From | Pjotr Kourzanoff <> | Subject | Re: Linux needs flexible security |
| |
On Thu, 25 Nov 1999, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 1999 at 10:10:16PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Ioctls should be banned. They make network transparent remote exec > > ... > > plan9 solved this with ctl files. i don't see why linux shouldn't move > the same way in order to reap the benefits of distributable computing.
And not only distributable computing. Ioctl lacks enforced interface and a model to back up this interface up. Ioctl is slow (a syscall for each ioctl is required). Ioctl is not safe (even with {device,tag,type,size} semantics for request). And finally, ioctl's are not portable.
I'm not saying they should banned right away, but that they should be considered for replacement in the near future with something like plan9 ctl files or /dev/sg type of thing.
> how do systems like mosix work around ioctl problems?
I thought mosix does not have ioctl problem, since they don't move the processes, but allocate them in close proximity (for an ioctl) to the resources.
Pjotr.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |