Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754757AbZIVAXK (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:23:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754677AbZIVAXI (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:23:08 -0400 Received: from rcsinet11.oracle.com ([148.87.113.123]:58216 "EHLO rgminet11.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754623AbZIVAXG (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:23:06 -0400 Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:22:24 -0700 From: Randy Dunlap To: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Cc: Linus Torvalds , Jamie Lokier , Evgeniy Polyakov , Eric Paris , David Miller , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, alan@linux.intel.com, hch@infradead.org Subject: Re: fanotify as syscalls Message-Id: <20090921172224.e33f5b08.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> In-Reply-To: References: <1252703626.2305.50.camel@dhcp231-106.rdu.redhat.com> <20090911212731.GA19901@shareable.org> <1252705902.2305.83.camel@dhcp231-106.rdu.redhat.com> <20090912094110.GB24709@ioremap.net> <20090914001759.GB30621@shareable.org> <20090914140720.GA8564@ioremap.net> <1252955295.2246.35.camel@dhcp231-106.rdu.redhat.com> <20090915201620.GB32192@ioremap.net> <1253051699.5213.18.camel@dhcp231-106.rdu.redhat.com> <20090916120523.GA12830@ioremap.net> <20090916122723.GE29359@shareable.org> Organization: Oracle Linux Eng. X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.7.1 (GTK+ 2.12.0; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Source-IP: abhmt004.oracle.com [141.146.116.13] X-Auth-Type: Internal IP X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090205.4AB818C4.0144:SCFSTAT5015188,ss=1,fgs=0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1518 Lines: 35 On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:15:28 -0700 Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Linus Torvalds writes: > > > Quite frankly, I have _never_ever_ seen a good reason for talking to the > > kernel with some idiotic packet interface. It's just a fancy way to do > > ioctl's, and everybody knows that ioctl's are bad and evil. Why are fancy > > packet interfaces suddenly much better? > > For working with the networking stack there are a lot of advantages because > netlink is the interface to everything in the network stack. > > There are nice things like the packet to create a new interface is the same > packet the kernel sends everyone to report a new interface etc. > > netlink also seems to get the structured data thing right. You can > parse the packet even if you don't understand everything. Each tag is > well defined like a syscall, taking exactly one kind of argument. > Which avoids the worst failure of ioctl in that you can't even parse > everything, and the argument may be a linked list in the calling > process or something else atrocious. > > All of that said syscalls are good, and I would not recommend netlink > to anything not in the network stack. like CONFIG_SCSI_NETLINK and CONFIG_QUOTA_NETLINK_INTERFACE :( --- ~Randy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/