linux-kernel - Re: do_loop_readv_writev() not as described for drivers implementing only write()?

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a36005b51003031746g3b83bcf6w818601dc94f66c42@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 3 Mar 2010 17:46:02 -0800
From:	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...il.com>
To:	Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@...il.com>
Cc:	Mike McTernan <mmcternan@...vana.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: do_loop_readv_writev() not as described for drivers implementing 
	only write()?

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 04:11, Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@...il.com> wrote:
> I would say that the libc enforces atomicity,

Not at all.  Any such implementation would unconditionally have to use
file locking and that's only a convention, not a requirement.  The
libc only tries to work around a missing writev syscall.
--
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/