[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200807131434.16654.vda.linux@googlemail.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 14:34:16 +0200
From: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
Cc: T?r?k Edwin <edwintorok@...il.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Elias Oltmanns <eo@...ensachen.de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
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?...
--
vda
--
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