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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20090110224616.GA29046@redhat.com>
Date:	Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:46:16 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Casey Dahlin <cdahlin@...hat.com>
Cc:	Scott James Remnant <scott@...onical.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	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

On 01/10, Casey Dahlin wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>> From the perspective of waitfd, the only difference between WNOHANG and
>>> O_NONBLOCK is which argument you put the flags in.
>>
>> No. Please see the note about ioctl/fcntl above.
>>
>> Oleg.
>>
> Yes but the actual waitfd call could simply set O_NONBLOCK on the
> descriptor when it receive WNOHANG in the flags, and read the descriptor
> flags going forward.

Ah, I misunderstood your message as if we shouldn't check f_flags at all.

Yes sure.

Oleg.

--
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/