Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1378053
| 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 17:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rnv3A-3mt-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <rnsyK-1lV-23@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
----- 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. 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
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