linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHSET 0/6 version 2] kmod: Optional timeout on the wait in call_usermodehelper

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: <20120328201904.GA4517@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:19:04 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	NFS list <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
	"Bhamare, Sachin" <sbhamare@...asas.com>,
	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>,
	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	"keyrings@...ux-nfs.org" <keyrings@...ux-nfs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET 0/6 version 2] kmod: Optional timeout on the wait in
	call_usermodehelper_exec

On 03/27, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> IOW, please explain at some length why you need this.  Do you think
> that there are existing call sites which can usefully use this feature?
> Do you expect that new callers are likely to need this?  etcetera.

Cough. Can't resist... Could you also explain why
http://marc.info/?l=linux-nfs&m=133252084301205 can't work?

To clarify, I am just curious, I am not arguing. I am asking because
if UMH_WAIT_PROC(timeout) fails with -ETIMEDOUT, then perhaps it makes
sense to not "leak" the user-space process servicing the kernel request
we were waiting for.

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/