linux-kernel - Re: F_DUPFD_CLOEXEC implementation

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: <20071001181648.GB8181@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Mon, 1 Oct 2007 19:16:48 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
To:	Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>
Cc:	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: F_DUPFD_CLOEXEC implementation

On Mon, Oct 01, 2007 at 11:07:15AM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> Also attached is ndelaytest.c which can be used to test that
> send(MSG_DONTWAIT) indeed is failing with EAGAIN if write would block
> and that other processes never see O_NONBLOCK set.
> 
> Comments?

Never send patches during or approaching hangover?
	* it's on a bunch of cyclic lists.  Have its neighbor
go away while you are doing all that crap => boom
	* there's that thing call current position...  It gets buggered.
	* overwriting it while another task might be in the middle of
syscall involving it => boom
	* non-cooperative tasks reading *in* *parallel* from the same
opened file are going to have a lot more serious problems than agreeing
on O_NONBLOCK anyway, so I really don't understand what the hell is that for.

-
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/