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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20071024211140.329fdd90.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:11:40 -0700 From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx> Cc: torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] Add lock_page_killable On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:24:57 -0400 Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx> wrote: > and associated infrastructure such as sync_page_killable and > fatal_signal_pending. Use lock_page_killable in do_generic_mapping_read() > to allow us to kill `cat' of a file on an NFS-mounted filesystem. whoa, big change. What exactly are the semantics here? If the process has actually been killed (ie: we know that userspace won't be running again) then we break out of a lock_page() and allow the process to exit? ie: it's basically invisible to userspace? If so, it sounds OK. I guess. We're still screwed if the process is doing a synchronous write and lots of other scenarios. How well has this been tested? Have the NFS guys had a think about it? Why does it return -EIO from read() and not -EINTR? - 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