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  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]
Date:	Sun, 13 Jul 2008 14:34:16 +0200
From:	Denys Vlasenko <>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <>
Cc:	T?r?k Edwin <>,
	Linus Torvalds <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>,
	Roland McGrath <>,
	Thomas Gleixner <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
	Elias Oltmanns <>,
	Arjan van de Ven <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86_64: fix delayed signals

On Sunday 13 July 2008 12:46, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 07/12, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday 12 July 2008 22:26, T?r?k Edwin wrote:
> > > A bit off-topic, but something I noticed during the tests:
> > > In my original test I have rm-ed the files right after launching dd in
> > > the background, yet it still continued to write to the disk.
> > > I can understand that if the file is opened O_RDWR, you might seek back
> > > and read what you wrote, so Linux needs to actually do the write,
> > > but why does it insist on writing to the disk, on a file opened with
> > > O_WRONLY, after the file itself got unlinked?
> >
> > Because process can do
> >
> > fcntl(fd, F_SETFL, fcntl(fd, F_GETFL) | O_RDWR)
> Is it?
> SETFL_MASK doesn't have O_RDWR, and in any case setfl() changes ->f_flags,
> not ->f_mode.

Just tested it and you are right.

I distinctly remember seeing such code somewhere. Interesting.
Now I wonder whether it was a bug, or those were not file descriptors,
but sockets?...
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists