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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20180116081033.GA3436@linux-zmni.apac.novell.com> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:10:33 +0800 From: Sean Fu <fxinrong@...il.com> To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Remove repeated test in ext4_file_read_iter. On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 03:02:55PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 10:01:49PM +0800, Sean Fu wrote: > > > > Correct, IOCB_NOWAIT read with zero count can return -EAGAIN, But I > > think that it is reasonable. while it got lock, zero would be returned > > in this case. > > Returning -EAGAIN and 0 are not the same thing. Specifically > returning 0 means "end of file". Hence, it is NOT reasonable. > I know that two returnning value mean different things. once the inode is not under lock contention, read again with zero count would return zero. > See the man page for read(2) or the relevant Single Unix Specification > standard: > > RETURN VALUE > On success, the number of bytes read is returned (zero indicates > end of file).... > > Changing the behavior of the system in which will break userspace is > never acceptable, and even more so given that this is just a "cleanup > patch". > I agree with you at this point. Thanks for your reply. > - Ted >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists