Matthew Wilcox writes:
> On Sat, May 19, 2001 at 12:51:23PM -0600, Richard Gooch wrote:
> > Al, if you really want to kill ioctl(2), then perhaps you should
> > implement a transaction(2) syscall. Something like:
> > int transaction (int fd, void *rbuf, size_t rlen,
> > void *wbuf, size_t wlen);
> >
> > Of course, there wouldn't be any practical gain, since we already have
> > ioctl(2). Any gain would be aesthetic.
>
> I can tell you haven't had to write any 32-bit ioctl emulation code for
> a 64-bit kernel recently.
The transaction(2) syscall can be just as easily abused as ioctl(2) in
this respect. People can pass pointers to ill-designed structures very
easily. The main advantage of transaction(2) is that hopefully, people
will not be so bone-headed as to forget to pass sizeof *structptr
as the size field. So perhaps some error trapping is possible.
Regards,
Richard....
Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au
Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 19 2001 - 22:27:04 EDT