lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2024]   [Feb]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v8 0/4] Introduce mseal
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> [240202 15:37]:
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 at 11:32, Theo de Raadt <deraadt@openbsd.org> wrote:
> >
> > Unix system calls must be atomic.
> >
> > They either return an error, and that is a promise they made no changes.
>
> That's actually not true, and never has been.

..

>
> In the specific case of mseal(), I suspect there are very few reasons
> ever *not* to be atomic, so in this particular context atomicity is
> likely always something that should be guaranteed. But I just wanted
> to point out that it's most definitely not a black-and-white issue in
> the general case.

There will be a larger performance cost to checking up front without
allowing the partial completion. I don't expect these to be high, but
it's something to keep in mind if we are okay with the flexibility and
less atomic operation.

Thanks,
Liam

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2024-05-27 14:46    [W:4.703 / U:0.244 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site