[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52E79FBE.7040904@list.ru>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 16:17:02 +0400
From: Stas Sergeev <stsp@...t.ru>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
CC: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
Margarita Manterola <margamanterola@...il.com>,
Maximiliano Curia <maxy@...servers.com.ar>,
Stas Sergeev <stsp@...rs.sourceforge.net>,
Arkadiusz Miskiewicz <a.miskiewicz@...il.com>,
One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Caylan Van Larson <i@...lan.net>
Subject: Re: Large pastes into readline enabled programs causes breakage from
v2.6.31 onwards
28.01.2014 16:03, Pavel Machek пишет:
> Hi!
>
>>>> How is this different from the unpatched kernel?
>>>> In the unpatched kernel, if you happen on reader side
>>>> to enable icanon while n_tty received all but VEOF (is this
>>>> possible at all?),
>>>> then the buffer will be flushed, and the remaining VEOF
>>>> will get you a nice EOF.
>>>> So, in the unpatched kernel you get EOF because the buffer
>>>> gets wiped.
>>> ???
>>>
>>> Testcase output from 3.12 w/o patch:
>> OK, sorry, after a year of rot of my patch in bugzilla, I've
>> completely forgot the pre-conditions, which is that the
>> buffer is not discarded, just not pushed.
>>
>>> Consider the total brute-force approach; a shadow read_flags that
>>> distinguishes a real EOF receive from the fake EOF push initiated
>>> by the patch.
> Was this solved somehow?
Wasn't this already applied?
I think you've missed the part of the discussion thread:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/linux.kernel/05c-vQUDww4/umXJsD_uiskJ
--
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