Yeah, Andy is right that we should *not* make "write()" have side effects.
Use it to queue things by all means, but not "do" things. Not unless there's a very sane security model. On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 4:59 PM Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think the right solution is one of: > > (a) Pass a netlink-formatted blob to fsopen() and do the whole thing in one > syscall. I don’t mean using netlink sockets — just the nlattr format. Or you > could use a different format. The part that matters is using just one syscall > to do the whole thing. Please no. Not another nasty marshalling thing. > (b) Keep the current structure but use a new syscall instead of write(). > > (c) Keep using write() but literally just buffer the data. Then have a new > syscall to commit it. In other words, replace “x” with a syscall and call > all the fs_context_operations helpers in that context instead of from write(). But yeah, b-or-c sounds fine. Linus
