linux-kernel - Re: Linux 3.3-rc4

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <1329865848.18384.64.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date:	Wed, 22 Feb 2012 00:10:48 +0100
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Thomas Meyer <thomas@...3r.de>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Linux 3.3-rc4

Le mardi 21 février 2012 à 14:43 -0800, Linus Torvalds a écrit :
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 5:42 AM, Thomas Meyer <thomas@...3r.de> wrote:
> >
> > 2.) while debugging above issue: I did find an minor bug in sys_poll() - nobody did take care of my proposed patch: https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/9/24/35
> 
> Ok, so I started out forward-porting that patch to current -git
> (trivial: it's just that the system call tables are differently
> generated now), but the more I look at it, the more I suspect that we
> should perhaps just globally fix "sys_poll()" to have the timeout
> argument be 'int'.
> 
> Because that *is* the standard user interface (just do "man 2 poll"),
> and while all of the git history (and all of the BK history) we've had
> it as "long", I suspect we should just fix it.
> 
> So I suspect the correct patch is just as attached instead: make
> sys_poll() just take an "int timeout". Any user who tried to use a
> long value would already have got truncated by glibc - I just checked.
> 
> Of course, there is a remote possibility that somebody might not use
> glibc, and have used "poll()" with the raw system call interface, and
> depended on using a 64-bit "long timeout" on 64-bit architectures.
> 
> But quite frankly, that sounds rather unlikely in the extreme.
> 
> Comments? If we do this, and somebody actually reports that they use a
> 64-bit timeout, we could always go back to the broken 'long' argument,
> and take your patch to fix the compat case.
> 
>                   Linus

Yep, this is what I thought, but when this was raised last september,
both Andrew and Andi disagreed.

https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/10/6/389



--
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/