Re: [RFC/PATCH] revokeat/frevoke system calls V5

2007-02-26 Thread Kyle Moffett
On Feb 26, 2007, at 13:46:21, H. Peter Anvin wrote: Alan wrote: I'm not sure. Turning, for example, the statat(dir_fd, name == NULL) error case into fstat(dir_fd) sounds like a way for apps, admittedly buggy ones, to be surprised. Maybe libc would be exptected to catch the error

Re: [RFC/PATCH] revokeat/frevoke system calls V5

2007-02-26 Thread H. Peter Anvin
Alan wrote: I'm not sure. Turning, for example, the statat(dir_fd, name == NULL) error case into fstat(dir_fd) sounds like a way for apps, admittedly buggy ones, to be surprised. Maybe libc would be exptected to catch the error before performing the shared system call? At that point

Re: [RFC/PATCH] revokeat/frevoke system calls V5

2007-02-26 Thread Alan
> I'm not sure. Turning, for example, the statat(dir_fd, name == NULL) > error case into fstat(dir_fd) sounds like a way for apps, admittedly > buggy ones, to be surprised. Maybe libc would be exptected to catch > the error before performing the shared system call? At that point would it

Re: [RFC/PATCH] revokeat/frevoke system calls V5

2007-02-26 Thread Alan
I'm not sure. Turning, for example, the statat(dir_fd, name == NULL) error case into fstat(dir_fd) sounds like a way for apps, admittedly buggy ones, to be surprised. Maybe libc would be exptected to catch the error before performing the shared system call? At that point would it not

Re: [RFC/PATCH] revokeat/frevoke system calls V5

2007-02-26 Thread H. Peter Anvin
Alan wrote: I'm not sure. Turning, for example, the statat(dir_fd, name == NULL) error case into fstat(dir_fd) sounds like a way for apps, admittedly buggy ones, to be surprised. Maybe libc would be exptected to catch the error before performing the shared system call? At that point

Re: [RFC/PATCH] revokeat/frevoke system calls V5

2007-02-26 Thread Kyle Moffett
On Feb 26, 2007, at 13:46:21, H. Peter Anvin wrote: Alan wrote: I'm not sure. Turning, for example, the statat(dir_fd, name == NULL) error case into fstat(dir_fd) sounds like a way for apps, admittedly buggy ones, to be surprised. Maybe libc would be exptected to catch the error

Re: [RFC/PATCH] revokeat/frevoke system calls V5

2007-02-25 Thread H. Peter Anvin
Pekka Enberg wrote: Hi Alan, On 2/26/07, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Whats the status on this, I was suprised to see something so important just go dead ? It's not dead. You can find the latest patches here: http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/penberg/linux/revoke/patches/ and user-space tests

Re: [RFC/PATCH] revokeat/frevoke system calls V5

2007-02-25 Thread Pekka Enberg
Hi Alan, On 2/26/07, Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Whats the status on this, I was suprised to see something so important just go dead ? It's not dead. You can find the latest patches here: http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/penberg/linux/revoke/patches/ and user-space tests here:

Re: [RFC/PATCH] revokeat/frevoke system calls V5

2007-02-25 Thread Alan
Whats the status on this, I was suprised to see something so important just go dead ? Alan - 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

Re: [RFC/PATCH] revokeat/frevoke system calls V5

2007-02-25 Thread Alan
Whats the status on this, I was suprised to see something so important just go dead ? Alan - 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

Re: [RFC/PATCH] revokeat/frevoke system calls V5

2007-02-25 Thread Pekka Enberg
Hi Alan, On 2/26/07, Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whats the status on this, I was suprised to see something so important just go dead ? It's not dead. You can find the latest patches here: http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/penberg/linux/revoke/patches/ and user-space tests here:

Re: [RFC/PATCH] revokeat/frevoke system calls V5

2007-02-25 Thread H. Peter Anvin
Pekka Enberg wrote: Hi Alan, On 2/26/07, Alan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whats the status on this, I was suprised to see something so important just go dead ? It's not dead. You can find the latest patches here: http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/penberg/linux/revoke/patches/ and user-space tests

Re: [RFC/PATCH] revokeat/frevoke system calls V5

2007-02-07 Thread Jan Kara
On Wed 07-02-07 12:50:34, Pekka J Enberg wrote: > Hi Honza, > > On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, Jan Kara wrote: > > Have you considered using similar hack as bad_inode.c instead of > > revoked_inode.c? > > I am not sure what you mean, revoked_inode.c looks pretty much the same as > bad_inode.c in

Re: [RFC/PATCH] revokeat/frevoke system calls V5

2007-02-07 Thread Pekka J Enberg
Hi Honza, On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, Jan Kara wrote: > Have you considered using similar hack as bad_inode.c instead of > revoked_inode.c? I am not sure what you mean, revoked_inode.c looks pretty much the same as bad_inode.c in mainline... Pekka - To unsubscribe from this

Re: [RFC/PATCH] revokeat/frevoke system calls V5

2007-02-07 Thread Jan Kara
Hello, > From: Pekka Enberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > The revokeat(2) and frevoke(2) system calls invalidate open file > descriptors and shared mappings of an inode. After an successful > revocation, operations on file descriptors fail with the EBADF or > ENXIO error code for regular and device

Re: [RFC/PATCH] revokeat/frevoke system calls V5

2007-02-07 Thread Jan Kara
Hello, From: Pekka Enberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] The revokeat(2) and frevoke(2) system calls invalidate open file descriptors and shared mappings of an inode. After an successful revocation, operations on file descriptors fail with the EBADF or ENXIO error code for regular and device files,

Re: [RFC/PATCH] revokeat/frevoke system calls V5

2007-02-07 Thread Pekka J Enberg
Hi Honza, On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, Jan Kara wrote: Have you considered using similar hack as bad_inode.c instead of revoked_inode.c? I am not sure what you mean, revoked_inode.c looks pretty much the same as bad_inode.c in mainline... Pekka - To unsubscribe from this

Re: [RFC/PATCH] revokeat/frevoke system calls V5

2007-02-07 Thread Jan Kara
On Wed 07-02-07 12:50:34, Pekka J Enberg wrote: Hi Honza, On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, Jan Kara wrote: Have you considered using similar hack as bad_inode.c instead of revoked_inode.c? I am not sure what you mean, revoked_inode.c looks pretty much the same as bad_inode.c in mainline...

Re: [RFC/PATCH] revokeat/frevoke system calls V5

2007-01-31 Thread Serge E. Hallyn
Quoting Pekka J Enberg ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > From: Pekka Enberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > The revokeat(2) and frevoke(2) system calls invalidate open file > descriptors and shared mappings of an inode. After an successful > revocation, operations on file descriptors fail with the EBADF or > ENXIO

Re: [RFC/PATCH] revokeat/frevoke system calls V5

2007-01-31 Thread Serge E. Hallyn
Quoting Pekka J Enberg ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): From: Pekka Enberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] The revokeat(2) and frevoke(2) system calls invalidate open file descriptors and shared mappings of an inode. After an successful revocation, operations on file descriptors fail with the EBADF or ENXIO error

[RFC/PATCH] revokeat/frevoke system calls V5

2007-01-28 Thread Pekka J Enberg
From: Pekka Enberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The revokeat(2) and frevoke(2) system calls invalidate open file descriptors and shared mappings of an inode. After an successful revocation, operations on file descriptors fail with the EBADF or ENXIO error code for regular and device files, respectively.

[RFC/PATCH] revokeat/frevoke system calls V5

2007-01-28 Thread Pekka J Enberg
From: Pekka Enberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] The revokeat(2) and frevoke(2) system calls invalidate open file descriptors and shared mappings of an inode. After an successful revocation, operations on file descriptors fail with the EBADF or ENXIO error code for regular and device files, respectively.