linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] nextfd(2)

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: <4F7F59E1.2040009@zytor.com>
Date:	Fri, 06 Apr 2012 14:02:25 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
CC:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, drepper@...il.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nextfd(2)

On 04/06/2012 01:16 PM, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> 
> closefrom(3) written via nextfd(2) loop is reliable and doesn't fail.
> closefrom(3) written via /proc/self/fd is reliable and can fail (including ENOMEM).
> closefrom(3) written via close(fd++) is unreliable.
> 

I call shenanigans on this.  There is no reason to ENOMEM on the second
written using the fdwalk() implementation I already posted, for example.

	-hpa


--
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/