linux-kernel - Re: Rationale for paccept() sigset argument?

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: <48BCF211.3050809@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 02 Sep 2008 09:58:09 +0200
From:	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...glemail.com>
To:	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...il.com>
CC:	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...glemail.com>,
	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jakub Jelinek <jakub@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Rationale for paccept() sigset argument?

Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Michael Kerrisk
> <mtk.manpages@...glemail.com> wrote:
>> What is the rationale for the sigset argument of paccept()?
> 
> accept, like select/poll, is used often as a function to dealy
> operation.  Unlike read, recv, etc, which are handled using O_NONBLOCK
> and select/poll.  pselect/ppoll do not really have a sigset parameter
> to handle signals in general.  You use it to enable special handling
> in case of blocking.  Example: if you want to implement userlevel
> context switching, you dedicate a signal to wake up any blocked
> thread.  Since accept falls more into the same category than poll,
> this means the sigset parameter is justified.  In theory we could add
> it to all functions but there is no reason to do this without any
> other reason to change the interface.


Ulrich, you snipped a relevant piece of my earlier message:

[[
 > * It seems to me that any case where we might want to use paccept() could be
 > equivalently dealt with using the existing pselect()/ppoll()/epoll_pwait()
 > followed by a conventional accept() if the listening file descriptor
 > indicates as ready.
]]

So I'll rephrase: what use case does the sigset argument of paccept()
allow us to handle that couldn't equally have been handled by
pselect()/ppoll()/epoll_pwait() + traditional accept()?

Cheers,

Michael

-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
man-pages online: http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online_pages.html
Found a bug? http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/reporting_bugs.html
--
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/