[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120229200636.GA15729@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 21:06:36 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@....edu>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
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 1/2] epoll: introduce POLLFREE to flush
->signalfd_wqh before kfree()
On 02/29, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> On 02/24/2012 11:07 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > This patch adds the special event, POLLFREE, currently only for
> > epoll. It expects that init_poll_funcptr()'ed hook should do the
> > necessary cleanup. Perhaps it should be defined as EPOLLFREE in
> > eventpoll.
>
> I have a bunch of userspace code that uses signalfd via epoll. Does
> this affect the ABI?
I hope not ;)
> Will epoll_wait ever set POLLFREE?
No.
> Does
> EPOLL_CTL_MOD accept POLLFREE?
Yes, it doesn't check the bits. EPOLL_CTL_MOD accepts any bit.
> IOW, from a userspace point of view, wtf does this do?
I hope this is transparent to the user-space. If the application
does EPOLL_CTL_MOD(POLLFREE) by mistake then ep_poll_callback(POLLFREE)
can trigger the unnecessary wakeup and move the file to ep->rdllist
but this is harmless. The subsequent ->poll() can't return POLLFREE.
Oleg.
--
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