netdev - Re: sys_paccept: disable paccept() until API design is resolved

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, 17 Sep 2008 18:30:42 +0400
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To:	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
Cc:	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...glemail.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...hat.com>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: sys_paccept: disable paccept() until API design is resolved

On 09/16, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
>
> Michael Kerrisk wrote:
>
> > * The behavior of paccept() when interrupted by a signal is IMO
> >   strange:
>
> You use your own opinion as the deciding factor?

It would be very strange if Michael used the somebody else's opinion ;)

> The behavior differs
> from other uses but is consistent with the accept() behavior.

And Michael asks why this behaviour (and paccept() itself) is useful.
I must admit I don't understand this too.

It is very possible that we both just need the help from expert (you).
(Ulrich, there is no irony, seriously).

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html