linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv4 5/6] Allow setting O

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: <20071119.235944.82120402.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Mon, 19 Nov 2007 23:59:44 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	drepper@...hat.com
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 5/6] Allow setting O_NONBLOCK flag for new sockets

From: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 01:53:14 -0500

FWIW, I think this indirect syscall stuff is the most ugly interface
I've ever seen proposed for the kernel.

And I agree with all of the objections raised by both H. Pater Anvin
and Eric Dumazet.

> This patch adds support for setting the O_NONBLOCK flag of the file
> descriptors returned by socket, socketpair, and accept.
 ...
> -	err = sock_attach_fd(sock1, newfile1);
> +	err = sock_attach_fd(sock1, newfile1,
> +			     INDIRECT_PARAM(file_flags, flags));

Where does this INDIRECT_PARAM() macro get defined?  I do not
see it being defined anywhere in these patches.

-
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/