linux-kernel - paccept() oddity

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:50:54 +0200
From:	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...glemail.com>
To:	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
CC:	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: paccept() oddity

Ulrich,

[
2.6.27-rc has paccept():

int paccept(int fd, struct sockaddr *sockaddr, socklen_t *addrlen,
         const sigset_t *sigmask, int setsize, int flags)
]

While considering the sigset argument for paccept() (see my previous
message), and testing that system call, I realized that there is a certain
oddness in the implementation of paccept().

Like accept(), paccept() automatically restarts if interrupted by a signal
handler that was established with the SA_RESTART flag.

On the other hand, pselect(), ppoll(), and epoll_pwait() are never restarted
if interrupted by a handler, even if the handler was established with
SA_RESTART.  (This is the same as with select(), poll(), and epoll_wait().)

It seems to me that it makes little sense to restart paccept(), especially in
the case where it is interrupted by a handler for one of the signals that is
in sigmask, since the whole point of calling paccept() is to block until a
connection is received, or until one of the signals in sigmask is caught().

How about changing paccept() so that it is never automatically restarted if
interrupted by a signal handler, regardless of the SA_RESTART flag.  (In
other words, paccept() should be consistent with pselect(), ppoll(), and
epoll_pwait(), rather than being consistent with accept().)  What are your
thoughts?

Cheers,

Michael

--
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/