linux-kernel - Re: Does Linux select() violate POSIX?

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 22 Jun 2011 12:20:58 -0600
From:	Chris Friesen <chris.friesen@...band.com>
To:	Nemo Publius <nemo@...f-evident.org>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Does Linux select() violate POSIX?

On 06/18/2011 11:06 AM, Nemo Publius wrote:
> Suppose I  have a file descriptor referencing a TCP/IP socket in blocking mode.
>
> Suppose select() reports that the descriptor is ready for reading.
>
> If I then call recv() on that descriptor, can it _ever_ block?

There was a long discussion about this back in 2004.

http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/10/6/117

Based on that discussion and the need to deal with legacy apps, 
udp_poll() has special-case code to handle blocking sockets--it 
validates the checksum before declaring the socket readable.  This costs 
some performance, so for non-blocking sockets the checksum validation is 
deferred until later when it will be hot in the cache due to the copy to 
userspace.

Other protocols may not handle this and so the warning is still valid in 
general.

Chris

-- 
Chris Friesen
Software Developer
GENBAND
chris.friesen@...band.com
www.genband.com
--
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/