Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1378295
| From | Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] vfs: Define new syscall getumask. |
| Date | 2016-04-13 23:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rnAcV-7zA-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <rnsyK-1lV-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <rnv3A-3mt-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
----- On Apr 13, 2016, at 11:39 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com wrote:
> ----- On Apr 13, 2016, at 8:57 AM, Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com wrote:
>
>> v1 -> v2:
>>
>> - Use current_umask() instead of current->fs->umask.
>>
>> - Retested it.
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> It's not possible to read the process umask without also modifying it,
>> which is what umask(2) does. A library cannot read umask safely,
>> especially if the main program might be multithreaded.
>>
>> This patch series adds a trivial system call "getumask" which returns
>> the umask of the current process.
>
> In addition to this system call, we could extend a variation of my
> thread_local_abi system call (https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/4/4/455)
> (could be without features flags, or an entirely new system call
> specifically for a umask cache) to register a "current umask" cache
> located in a TLS area.
>
> Basically, reading the current umask value would be a simple load from
> a TLS variable.
I'm actually discussing 3 separate things here: the umask, sigmask, and
cpu affinity mask.
Not sure if caching the umask in a TLS would be that useful, though.
The caching idea seems to make more sense for signal mask and cpu
affinity mask.
Thanks,
Mathieu
> This could also allow quickly blocking and unblocking
> signal delivery from user-space by storing a mask to this TLS area.
>
> The kernel could then look into the signal mask in this TLS area whenever
> it needs to deliver a signal (assuming this code path can take
> user-space faults), in addition to the mask kept within the
> task struct.
>
> This "tls cache" idea could also apply to setting a CPU affinity to the
> currently running CPU for short user-space critical sections.
>
> The benefit here is to get _very_ fast operations on the thread umask
> and cpu affinity.
>
> Are those ideas too far-fetched ?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mathieu
>
>>
>> Another approach to this has been attempted before, adding something
>> to /proc, although it didn't go anywhere. See:
>>
>> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1292109
>>
>> Another way to solve this would be to add a thread-safe getumask to
>> glibc. Since glibc could own the mutex, this would permit libraries
>> linked to this glibc to read umask safely.
>>
>> I should also note that man-pages documents getumask(3), but no
>> version of glibc has ever implemented it.
>>
>> Typical test script:
>>
>> #include <stdio.h>
>> #include <stdlib.h>
>> #include <linux/unistd.h>
>> #include <sys/syscall.h>
>>
>> int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>> {
>> int r = syscall(329);
>> if (r == -1) {
>> perror("getumask");
>> exit(1);
>> }
>> printf("umask = %o\n", r);
>> exit(0);
>> }
>>
>> $ ./getumask
>> umask = 22
>>
>> Rich.
>
> --
> Mathieu Desnoyers
> EfficiOS Inc.
> http://www.efficios.com
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH v2 0/2] vfs: Define new syscall getumask. "Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones@redhat.com> - 2016-04-13 15:00 +0200
[PATCH v2 2/2] x86: Wire up new getumask system call on x86. "Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones@redhat.com> - 2016-04-13 15:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] vfs: Define new syscall getumask. Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> - 2016-04-13 16:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] vfs: Define new syscall getumask. Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> - 2016-04-14 05:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] vfs: Define new syscall getumask. Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> - 2016-04-14 21:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] vfs: Define new syscall getumask. Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> - 2016-04-13 17:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] vfs: Define new syscall getumask. Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> - 2016-04-13 23:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] vfs: Define new syscall getumask. Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> - 2016-04-14 04:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] vfs: Define new syscall getumask. Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2016-04-14 20:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] vfs: Define new syscall getumask. Colin Walters <walters@verbum.org> - 2016-04-13 17:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] vfs: Define new syscall getumask. "Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones@redhat.com> - 2016-04-13 18:10 +0200
csiph-web