From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 9 12:31:51 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C3D9873; Thu, 9 May 2013 12:31:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) Received: from kib.kiev.ua (kib.kiev.ua [IPv6:2001:470:d5e7:1::1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9CDC3C7; Thu, 9 May 2013 12:31:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tom.home (kostik@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kib.kiev.ua (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r49CVl1E074095; Thu, 9 May 2013 15:31:47 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.8.3 kib.kiev.ua r49CVl1E074095 Received: (from kostik@localhost) by tom.home (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id r49CVlAp074094; Thu, 9 May 2013 15:31:47 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) X-Authentication-Warning: tom.home: kostik set sender to kostikbel@gmail.com using -f Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 15:31:47 +0300 From: Konstantin Belousov To: John Baldwin Subject: Re: Extending MADV_PROTECT Message-ID: <20130509123147.GT3047@kib.kiev.ua> References: <201305071433.27993.jhb@freebsd.org> <201305081209.49429.jhb@freebsd.org> <20130509082538.GQ3047@kib.kiev.ua> <201305090814.52166.jhb@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="quHH9trqkXa1YO4R" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201305090814.52166.jhb@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,FREEMAIL_FROM,NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on tom.home Cc: arch@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 May 2013 12:31:51 -0000 --quHH9trqkXa1YO4R Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, May 09, 2013 at 08:14:52AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > > You mentioned a priority, and I think ability to pass a structure to the > > sub-function of the syscall is better then carving bits in the int argu= ment, > > or introducing a new syscall. >=20 > I think the priority would still be a pprotect operation. In some ways i= t would > be nice to be able to do ioctls on processes and maybe this could be stru= ctured > similarly? >=20 > int procctl(int pid, unsigned long cmd, ...) >=20 > (So it's basically ioctl but with the 'fd' replaced with 'pid'. This wou= ld also > mean that in the future with Robert's pdfork() you could perhaps have ioc= tl on > a process fd just foward the request to procctl). Yes, this is exactly what I mean. --quHH9trqkXa1YO4R Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRi5cyAAoJEJDCuSvBvK1BQpoP/Rc2ohWJqqLGUmVelsS0tWAs SkXFMb3OHtoHBaNpWsdMgwFRlcGd5kI13KHTUNemqpx7iQC7oIbAFBvHcLL67bCL TWF8w6gYKAFxcCjFwLDhjU4nPR/FJu0CYEjDKh+gpoHDpdVXLcTDKyNSgwr/dFqK VUaaK6DfQVQPyoN/45u+iawDuHtjfMsnXpwMAP2goTcehI/oghTMjbgvVE3tNhrN MJcduwE4j5aLuGW8vKBxgtIn7v6lXMwjtdPs1QBHX3YTps6uy28kb71mzp+XpzDi 0o7xHwWI0g5ceuflM9vMFq0zWu88ychz2v+/EyMckTPGdGSj7tw4eOAxHZwop3RI TL7o3HFMcRmolrhRUq0NAAQWplNYXjufUc4yi9voUYdAlH4V91zuuoCS/zzvuzGd kRLBy/KVl9zZu9iDQo1Br7w7QXSFgpx7LhqOonNAp57OPsyXQ/QtsLrKbZJVkrY6 8uwq1O1eKQdJc8Bipa/Et4dvXbBX+vfZYAN6Pmdpt2XJwMvmh9VmhfPn5/Hnm0NC 70mvUTTO8Sr7y9nYWGkb1HGQYye7p5AMPWysDy5Vzka9RmLRWjG2y/V/ID6M4XGS +QnieKdKjtkxjbscUtJGxvn4lsB503w0Uv1VdJAwKxQ/19dfovHcxsz5pml6XTWY 87ZP/a0XQSNKQDbgirlN =Vy/V -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --quHH9trqkXa1YO4R--