linux-kernel - Re: PATCH - x86-64 signed-compare bug, was Re: select() setting ERESTARTNOHAND (514).

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]

Message-Id: <200701110237.05753.ak@suse.de>
Date:	Thu, 11 Jan 2007 02:37:05 +0100
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To:	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc:	Sean Reifschneider <jafo@...my.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PATCH - x86-64 signed-compare bug, was Re: select() setting ERESTARTNOHAND (514).

On Thursday 11 January 2007 02:02, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Thursday January 11, ak@...e.de wrote:
> > > Just a 'me too' at this point. 
> > > The X server on my shiny new notebook (Core 2 Duo) occasionally dies
> > > with 'select' repeatedly returning ERESTARTNOHAND.  It is most
> > > annoying!
> > 
> > Normally it should be only visible in strace. Did you see it without
> > strace?
> 
> No, only in strace.

strace leaks internal errors. At some point that should be fixed,
but it's not really a serious problem.

There was one other report of internal errors leaking without strace,
but it was vague and I never got confirmation.

> Still, I think it would be safer to have the cast, in case the compiler
> decided to be clever.... or does the C standard ensure against that?

It does.

-Andi
-
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/