linux-kernel - Re: [REGRESSION][PATCH] mqueue: Ignore the validity of abs_timeout parameter when message can be performed immediately

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:	Wed, 14 Mar 2012 20:48:36 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Akira Takeuchi <takeuchi.akr@...panasonic.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Carsten Emde <C.Emde@...dl.org>,
	Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION][PATCH] mqueue: Ignore the validity of abs_timeout
 parameter when message can be performed immediately

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> Aside of my previous ranting about the insanity of that, the following
> is actually open for interpretation:
>
>  "The validity of the abstime parameter need not be checked if a
>  message can be removed from the message queue immediately."
>
> It's not necessary to check the validity of the abstime parameter, but
> the spec does not forbid it either.

Yeah, I have to agree with your reading.

I think that checking the validity is the sane thing to do, especially
if it just "falls out" of how the code is written.

At the same time, I can also imagine code that doesn't even look at
the timeout parameter unless it is about to go to sleep, so I can
understand the POSIX wording too: you don't *have* to check the
validity if it's irrelevant, and not checking it is the natural thing
for the code.

But it certainly doesn't seem to disallow the current code either.

So I do not think that the POSIX wording should be taken to mean that
"you mustn't check the validity". It's a "whatever", not a "must do
X".

With the current code, checking the validity of the timeout falls out
from what we do. I don't think we need to work around that, based on
the POSIX wording. And if there are no applications that actually
broke, I don't think we should care.

Is there some other standard that says that you *have* to let crazy
invalid values go?

                 Linus
--
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/