linux-kernel - RE: O_NONBLOCK setting "leak" outside of a process??

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:	Sun, 4 Feb 2007 13:08:36 -0800
From:	"David Schwartz" <davids@...master.com>
To:	"Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: O_NONBLOCK setting "leak" outside of a process??


> > *Every* blocking fd operation should be followed by a check to
> > see if the
> > operation failed, succeeded, or partially succeeded. If it partially
> > succeeded, it needs to be continued. If it failed, you need to
> > check if the
> > error is fatal or transient. If transient, you need to back off
> > and retry.
> > It has, sadly, always been this way. (Programs can get signals,
> > debuggers
> > can interrupt a system call, the unexpected happens.)

> Well, that's partly nonsense.  The only error condition which is
> always being
> checked in correctly written software is EINTR - if you've got an
> interrupt,
> continue/retry the I/O.

> Checking and retrying for EAGAIN is umm.. plain wrong.  You'll get a nice
> busywait eating 100% CPU this way, till the I/O actually happens, and will
> get another the next try.

I said back off and retry.

> Checking I/Os for every possible weird condition is just non-productive.
>
> It's like this:
>
>   if (fcntl(fd, F_SETFL, ~O_NONBLOCK) < 0)  error_out();
>   if (fcntl(fd, F_GETFL, 0) & O_NOBLOCK) ??? what to do?
>   while(do_something())
>     if (fcntl(fd, F_GETFL, 0) & O_NOBLOCK)
>       if (fcntl(fd, F_SETFL, ~O_NONBLOCK) < 0)  error_out();
>
> (don't pay attention to ~O_NONBLOCK thing - it's wrong, but it's
> used like that just to show the "idea" - which is to clear O_NONBLOCK)

I agree that checking for a condition that there's no sane way to handle is
non-productive. But here we're talking about testing for a condition that
has been proven to happen and for which a sane way to handle it is
obvious -- back off and retry.

> Which is a complete nonsense.  It's either set or cleared, and once
> set or cleared it should stay that way, period.  Until the app changes
> it again.

Until anything with access to it changes it.

> >> Worse, it cannot be worked around by dup() because duped fds
> >> are still sharing O_NONBLOCK. How can I work around this?
> >
> > If this causes your code a problem, your code is broken. What
> > does your code
>
> With dup() - maybe.  But definitely NOT with fork().

With 'fork', you either give the other process the file descriptor or you
share it. Any shared resource requires cooperation for sane results.

> > currently do if it gets a non-fatal error from a blocking
> > operation? If it
> > does anything other than back off and retry, it's mishandling
> > the condition.

> Retrying I/O in case of EAGAIN is *wrong*.  See above.

You missed the "back off" part.

DS


-
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/