Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 2 Feb 2024 16:18:07 -0500 | From | "Liam R. Howlett" <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |