On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 07:40:32AM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-09-24 at 01:54, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > RFC:
> >
> > Can and should we work towards using this as interface for drivers that
> > need callbacks from an external (closed source) library/HAL?
>
> As I mentioned to Richard Jonson, it can be considered as
> ioctl. ioctl-ng!
> Unified interface (as ioctl) can be used for any type of modules.
> It is just a bit extended ioctl :)
>
> And _yes_, it can be used to turn on/off binary-only callbacks.
> Remember pwc - closed part can register callback and open part can
> send message, or even closed part can register notification when
> open part registers itself and begin to "trash the kernel".
>
> I understand that it is not right way to include it is into the kernel,
> but I personally do not understand how it is different
> from just extended ioctl. It was designed to be usefull and convenient,
> and it is.
>
> BTW, any binary-only module can _itself_ create netlink socket
> with input callback. And that is all - it will be absolutely
> the same as above.
>
> One may consider connector as yet-another-netlink-helper.
>
Eh. I'm just wondering if there's any *right* way of using binary
callbacks on a linux driver so that it doesn't *taint* and possibly
*trash it*, as you said. I was wondering if perhaps through the
connector we could somehow protect the kernel of possibly ill-behaved callbacks.
Comments?
Luis
--
GnuPG Key fingerprint = 113F B290 C6D2 0251 4D84 A34A 6ADD 4937 E20A 525E
pgpYrXcVejGkq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
|