[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705202146560.22011@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 22:05:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: Davi Arnaut <davi@...ent.com.br>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] signalfd: retrieve multiple signals with one read() call
On Sun, 20 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > I think it fits the rule "buffer must be big enough for at least one sigingo".
> > We use the special return 0; as indicator that the process we were
> > monitoring signals, detached the sighand.
> >
>
> hm. Kernel violates proper read() semantics in many places. Looks like we
> just did it again.
I think we can have the check that "if size == 0 return 0". The above
cited return-0-on-detch would still apply for enough sized buffers. So:
1) size == 0, return 0 (POSIX wants this)
2) size < sizeof(signalfd_siginfo), return EINVAL
3) size >= sizeof(signalfd_siginfo) && DETACH, return 0
The signalfd falls into what POSIX defined as "special file", and can
return a lower-than-size result.
> Unless we just remove the __clear_user() altogether. Who said that "Unused
> memebers should be zero"?
Because it is a typically used value for still-unused/reserved members?
Better than random values I think ;)
Members validity is driven by si_code & SI_MASK anyway.
- Davide
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists