Dmitry Adamushko wrote:
On 10/10/05, Philippe Gerum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Dmitry Adamushko wrote:

As you noticed below, the point is that this feature should be active for
kernel-based code only; for user-space, we're toast: typical chicken-and-egg
problem since we need the registry to cross the space boundaries but the
registry requires a name to index the object first. So yes, we need to check for
anonymous calls in every service taking a symbolic name in native/syscalls.c,
and return -EINVAL when applicable.

I thought that "libnative" would be a better place since this way we
would avoid the user mode -> kernel mode switch.

...Or, we might auto-generate some dummy name in native/syscalls.c we would pass
to the registry when this situation arises, so that anonymous creation and use

from user-space would still be possible.

Yep, in this case a name would be a string == object's address, thus
it's unique.

Ok, I'd probably vote for the 2-nd approach.

Definitely better since this keeps the semantics consistent across execution 

Then we still have a difference in behaviour of the objectes depending
on where they are craeted. I mean, the NULL-named user-space objects
will be displayed under some, well, not-that-informative names (e.g.
0xc3264780) while the kernel-based ones will not have an entry in the
registry (they are really NULL-named).


1) don't display such names in /proc;
2) make a common mechanism for both spaces.

rt_mutex_create()   // for other objects as well
- xnobject_copy_name(mutex->name,name);
+xnobject_create_name(mutex->name,name, object);

xnobject_create_name(dst,src, object)
      if (src)
            snprintf(dst, XNOBJECT_NAME_LEN, "%p", object);

// the slightly ugly thing is that we need to be sure that dst is
always object->name so it's really of XNOBJECT_NAME_LEN size.

We should pass the size along with the copy buffer, mainly for readability, and also as a safety belt.

Then we don't need "*name = '\n';" in syscall.c:__rt_object_create().
But this bit should be removed in any case.

What do you think?

Frankly, I like this approach better. All objects get some name if
they are NULL-named by a user and the code changes are a bit more
graceful. To show them in /proc or not is still another question.

I'd like we don't generalize an exception case here. The fact that for some internal reason we need to put a dummy name on anon objects created from user-space should not make all anon objects from kernel space have a registry slot too, this would just be overkill (registry slots don't come for free actually).

That said, the remaining point basically is: how do we avoid anon objects with auto-generated names from appearing under /proc? I'm not a fan of "magic values" which would distinguish a real name from a dummy one, so I'd rather use the existing possibility of passing a NULL pnode pointer to rt_registry_enter(), which would still index an object without actually exporting it to the /proc interface. The question is: how could we make the *_create() calls invoking rt_registry_enter() with a NULL pnode when applicable, without changing the kernel-based interface of the API.



Reply via email to