linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] signalfd/epoll fixes

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: <CA+55aFyPCHiESkfGMLOA7vNYz46FOnTrvQFJhwCFz9wAehP=7w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 24 Feb 2012 15:14:58 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Jason Baron <jbaron@...hat.com>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
	Eugene Teo <eugeneteo@...nel.sg>,
	Maxime Bizon <mbizon@...ebox.fr>,
	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] signalfd/epoll fixes

On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> I'm *really* conflicted, because I have this really strong feeling
> that it's just papering over a symptom, and we damn well shouldn't be
> doing that. I really think that what we really should do is allow
> "poll()" to have a "poll_remove" callback (so each "add_poll_wait()"
> will have a callback when it gets remove).
>
> Then we could make the poll() functions actually do allocations and
> crap - or at least add refcounts - and the "poll_remove()" ones would
> undo them.

Ok, I have *NOT* tested this, and by now it's certainly not 3.3
material any more, but here's a patch to kind of lay the groundwork
and show what I mean.

UNTESTED! UNTESTED! CAVEAT! Probably horribly broken.

                  Linus

View attachment "patch.diff" of type "text/x-patch" (9099 bytes)