linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND][RFC PATCH v2] waitfd

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090107172431.GA24982@elte.hu>
Date:	Wed, 7 Jan 2009 18:24:31 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Casey Dahlin <cdahlin@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [RESEND][RFC PATCH v2] waitfd


* Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:

> On 01/07, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > (Cc:-ed a few more folks who might be interested in this)
> >
> > * Casey Dahlin <cdahlin@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > +asmlinkage long sys_waitfd(int which, pid_t upid, int options, int unused)
> > > +{
> > > +	int ufd;
> > > +	struct waitfd_ctx *ctx;
> > > +
> > > +	/* Just to make sure we don't end up with a sys_waitfd4 */
> > > +	(void)unused;
> >
> > looks a bit silly ...
> >
> > > +
> > > +	if (options & ~(WNOHANG|WEXITED|WSTOPPED|WCONTINUED))
> > > +		return -EINVAL;
> > > +	if (!(options & (WEXITED|WSTOPPED|WCONTINUED)))
> > > +		return -EINVAL;
> > > +
> > > +	ctx = kmalloc(sizeof(*ctx), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > +	if (!ctx)
> > > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > > +
> > > +	ctx->ops = options;
> > > +	ctx->upid = upid;
> > > +	ctx->which = which;
> > > +
> > > +	ufd = anon_inode_getfd("[waitfd]", &waitfd_fops, ctx,
> > > +			       (options & WNOHANG) ? O_NONBLOCK : 0);
> 
> minor nit...
> 
> Please note that unlike other sys_...fd() syscalls, sys_waitfd()
> doesn't allow to pass O_CLOEXEC. Looks like we need a separate
> "flags" argument...
> 
> Also, ioctl(FIONBIO) or fcntl(O_NONBLOCK) have no effect on
> waitfd, not very good.
> 
> I'd suggest to remove WNOHANG from waitfd_ctx->ops and treat
> (->f_flags & O_NONBLOCK) as WNOHANG.
> 
> (can't resist, ->ops is not the best name ;)

yeah, ->ops should be ->options. The name ->ops is generally use for 
method vectors and so.

	Ingo
--
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/