linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Use ERESTARTNOHAND if poll() is interrupted by a signal

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20070828091109.9E4E14D04CC@magilla.localdomain>
Date:	Tue, 28 Aug 2007 02:11:09 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use ERESTARTNOHAND if poll() is interrupted by a signal

In POSIX, select/pselect is specifically exempted from the usual SA_RESTART
behavior.  I'm not really sure if that is entirely historical or because
after a handler has run even an adjusted relative timeout may no longer be
what you actually want.  There is no such exemption for poll/ppoll, though
in general their behavior and specification are very parallel.  I wonder if
they really should diverge.

Thanks,
Roland
-
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/