linux-kernel - Re: O_NONBLOCK is NOOP on block devices

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:03:37 -0500
From:	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To:	M vd S <mvds.00@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: O_NONBLOCK is NOOP on block devices

M vd S <mvds.00@...il.com> writes:

>> > > If O_NONBLOCK is meaningful whatsoever (see man page docs for
>> > > semantics) against block devices, one would expect a nonblocking io
>> >
>> > It isn't...
>>
>> Thanks for the reply. It's good to get confirmation that I am not all
>> alone in an alternate non blocking universe. The linux man pages
>> actually had me convinced O_NONBLOCK would actually keep a process
>> from blocking on device io :-)
>>
>
> You're even less alone, I'm running into the same issue just now. But
> I think I've found a way around it, see below.

I guess I should note that I've suggested nonblocking I/O for files
before:

  http://linux.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/Kernel/2004-10/0290.html

I'll also note that enabling such a patch broke apps that accessed cd
burners, for example, since O_NONBLOCK had some preexisting semantics
there that I fail to recall.

Cheers,
Jeff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/