linux-kernel - Re: epoll design problems with common fork/exec patterns

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: <1204075804.5238.7.camel@linux.heathens.co.nz>
Date:	Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:30:04 -0500
From:	Chris "ク" Heath <chris@...thens.co.nz>
To:	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
Cc:	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...glemail.com>,
	David Schwartz <davids@...master.com>, dada1@...mosbay.com,
	"Linux-Kernel@...r. Kernel. Org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-man@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: epoll design problems with common fork/exec patterns

On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 10:51 -0800, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> 
> > Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > > On Sun, 28 Oct 2007, David Schwartz wrote:
> > > 
> > >> Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Events are not necessarly reported "by descriptors". epoll uses an opaque
> > >>> field provided by the user.
> > >>>
> > >>> It's up to the user to properly chose a tag that will makes sense
> > >>> if the user
> > >>> app is playing dup()/close() games for example.
> > >> Great. So the only issue then is that the documentation is confusing. It
> > >> frequently uses the term "fd" where it means file. For example, it says:
> > >>
> > >>               Q1     What  happens  if  you  add  the  same fd to an
> > >> epoll_set
> > >>                      twice?
> > >>
> > >>               A1     You will probably get EEXIST.  However,  it  is
> > >> possible
> > >>                      that  two  threads  may  add the same fd twice. This is
> > >> a
> > >>                      harmless condition.
> > >>
> > >> This gives no reason to think there's anything wrong with adding the same
> > >> file twice so long as you do so through different descriptors. (One can
> > >> imagine an application that does this to segregate read and write operations
> > >> to avoid a race where the descriptor is closed from under a writer due to
> > >> handling a fatal read error.) Obviously, that won't work.
> > > 
> > > I agree, that is confusing. However, you can safely add two different file 
> > > descriptors pointing to the same file*, with different event masks, and 
> > > that will work as expected.
> > 
> > So can I summarize what I understand:
> > 
> > a) Adding the same file descriptor twice to an epoll set will cause an
> > error (EEXIST).
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> > b) In a separate message to linux-man, Chris Heath says that two threads
> > *can't* add the same fd twice to an epoll set, despite what the existing
> > man page text says.  I haven't tested that, but it sounds to me as though
> > it is likely to be true.  Can you comment please Davide?
> 
> Yes, you can't add the same fd twice. Think about a DB where "file*,fd" is 
> the key.

To clarify, the key appears to be file* plus the user-space integer that
represents the fd.


> > c) It is possible to add duplicated file descriptors referring to the same
> > underlying open file description ("file *").  As you note, this can be a
> > useful filtering technique, if the two file descriptors specify different
> > masks.
> > 
> > Assuming that is all correct, for man-pages-2.79, I've reworked the text
> > for Q1/A1 as follows:
> > 
> >        Q1     What  happens  if you add the same file descriptor
> >               to an epoll set twice?
> > 
> >        A1     You will probably get EEXIST.  However, it is pos-
> >               sible   to   add  a  duplicate  (dup(2),  dup2(2),
> >               fcntl(2) F_DUPFD, fork(2)) descriptor to the  same
> >               epoll  set.   This  can  be a useful technique for
> >               filtering events, if the duplicate  file  descrip-
> >               tors are registered with different events masks.
> > 
> > Seem okay Davide?
> 
> Looks sane to me.

I think fork(2) should not be in the above list.  fork(2) duplicates the
kernel's fd, but the user-space integer that represents the fd remains
the same, so you will get EEXIST if you try to add the fd that was
duplicated by fork.

Chris

--
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/