[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110912170657.GA10452@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 18:06:57 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>
Cc: Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
Neil Horman <nhorman@...hat.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert.xu@...hat.com>,
Steve Grubb <sgrubb@...hat.com>,
Stephan Mueller <stephan.mueller@...ec.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] random: add blocking facility to urandom
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 10:02:43AM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> Ted Ts'o wrote:
> >Yeah, but there are userspace programs that depend on urandom not
> >blocking... so your proposed change would break them.
> I'm already consigned to the fact this isn't going to fly, but I'm
> still curious to know examples of programs that are going to break
> here, for my own education. Its already possible for urandom reads
> to fail as the code is now (-ERESTARTSYS and -EFAULT are possible),
> so a sane program ought to already be handling error cases, though
> not -EAGAIN, which this would add.
It's not just a question of error handling existing, it's also about the
expectations the system has for the behaviour of the file - if urandom
is expected to always be able to return data an application is likely to
rely on the fact that it's effectively non-blocking anyway and not bother
setting non-blocking mode at all and so have no graceful handling for
this.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists