linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/6] [2.6.29] epoll: fix for epoll_wait sometimes returning events on closed fds

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: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0902241241530.20039@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Date:	Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:45:14 -0800 (PST)
From:	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To:	Tony Battersby <tonyb@...ernetics.com>
cc:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] [2.6.29] epoll: fix for epoll_wait sometimes returning
 events on closed fds

On Tue, 24 Feb 2009, Tony Battersby wrote:

> Ugh.  The manpage on Ubuntu 8.04 that I am using doesn't contain this
> lengthy caveat; it just says "A6     Yes."  To me it sounds like the
> (newer) manpage is just documenting away a bug/misfeature with "It's
> supposed to do that.  Gives it character." rather than expecting the
> kernel developers to make the API behave in a more reasonable way.  Just
> my opinion; others may agree or disagree.
> 
> If the officially-sanctioned epoll interface is supposed to report
> events on fds that were added, duped, and then the original fd closed,
> then my patch will probably break that behavior.  In that case, it will
> be more difficult to fix problem that my patch is trying to fix (which
> doesn't involve dup, dup2, fcntl, fork, etc.).  So before I try to think
> of another way, let me ask: do we want to fix the problem that I am
> reporting, or just document it away in the manpage as (apparently) has
> been done before?

No. Like it has been explained, MT applications can report events for 
closed files anyway. It is a matter of where the close() happen in time 
(pretty easy to figure out if you make a time/thread chart).
As for the other patches, some could be applied, but I didn't look at them 
deeply and I need time to review them. Will take time to review them 
tomorrow or the day after.



- Davide


--
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/