linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] coredump: Retry writes where appropriate

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: <20090531164925.GA22309@dspnet.fr.eu.org>
Date:	Sun, 31 May 2009 18:49:25 +0200
From:	Olivier Galibert <galibert@...ox.com>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	paul@...-scientist.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	stable@...nel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] coredump: Retry writes where appropriate

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 05:31:44PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> O> Perhaps removing the "|| r == -EINTR" part would make both of you
> > happy?  He gets the reliability on pipes, you keep the interrupt on
> > signals.
> 
> How does that improve things.

I can very well misunderstand the code, but if you dump to a pipe,
what you can write() in one call is limited to the pipe buffer
capacity, isn't it?  Something like 16 pages iirc.  So you get a short
write and nothing there seems to call write again.

I've also had short writes on normal filesystems (nfs at least,
reiserfs and ext3 too I seem to remember, but it was a 2.6.20-era
kernel) for writes bigger than 2G.  So I'm not sure a dump of a 2G+
process would actually work.

> There is a second problem anyway. Suppose something is causing a
> continual stream of signal events - what guarantees it makes progress ?

Can a signal end up in anything else than EINTR?

> The only source of signals during a dump should be external ones. Far
> better would be to set some kind of defined signal mask during the dump
> (say SIGPIPE, SIGINT, SIGQUIT) ? I agree with Paul's patch in the sense
> we don't want spurious SIGIO events or similar spoiling a dump.

But Paul's patch is not just about signals, it's about EAGAIN and
short writes too.

  OG.

--
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/