Well, lets begin.
In the future, I wish to have fd_getfile() returning acquired fp instance.
The goal is to not to have pointer to destroyed fp instance
in FREF()/FRELE()/fd_getfile() races. This one requres modification of
getsock(), getvnode() and dupfdopen() functions, they must receive pointer
On 14 Apr 2015, at 18:35, Mike Belopuhov wrote:
>
> Supposedly you don't have to KERNEL_LOCK for pool_{get,put} anymore.
Underlying uvm calls are not mp safe and not protected by KERNEL_LOCK() calls.
Struct file again.
f_flag isn’t modified often, so it’s modifacation can be atomic.
f_msgcount and f_rxfer, f_wxfer, f_seek, f_rbytes, f_wbytes can be protected by
rwlock.
f_offset protection is actual for vnodes only.
FIF_MARK and FIF_DEFER flags are used only by unpc garbage collector. This
f
On 08 Apr 2015, at 17:33, kanonenvogel@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Is it a good idea?
bad idea because of sys_pread/sys_pwrite
On 08 Apr 2015, at 15:03, Ted Unangst wrote:
> Also, this only helps if you're sure that the code reading the flag will do so
> in an smp safe way. In many cases, the reading code will also need to acquire
> a lock in order to correctly do something after reading the flag. From the
> diff context
On 08 Apr 2015, at 15:03, Ted Unangst wrote:
> The atomic functions are quite expensive on
> some architectures, so we don't want to just use them everywhere.
So, rwlock is better here?
Also, can you explain this lines from finishdup() function (openbsd-5., file
kern/kern_descrip.c, lines 576-
On 08 Apr 2015, at 02:31, Philip Guenther wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Kanonenvogel
> wrote:
>> I have idea to modify falloc() function and related logic.
>> Now, after successful faclloc call, we have half-initialized struct file
>> object, protected by FIF_LARVAL flag.
>> I wan
