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  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]
Date:	Thu, 3 Apr 2014 23:53:53 -0700
From:	Christoph Hellwig <>
To:	Richard Hansen <>
Cc:, Steven Whitehouse <>,
	Christoph Hellwig <>,
	"" <>,
	lkml <>,
	Linux API <>,
	Greg Troxel <>,
	Peter Zijlstra <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: msync: require either MS_ASYNC or MS_SYNC

Guys, I don't really see why you get so worked up about this.  There is
lots and lots of precedent of Linux allowing non-Posix (or non-standard
in general) arguments to system calls.  Even ones that don't have
symbolic names defined for them (the magic 3 open argument for device

Given that we historicaly allowed the 0 argument to msync we'll have to
keep supporting it to not break existing userspace, and adding warnings
triggered by userspace that the person running the system usually can't
fix for something that is entirely harmless at runtime isn't going to
win you friends either.

A "strictly Posix" environment that catches all this sounds fine to me,
but it's something that should in the userspace c runtime, not the
kernel.  The kernel has never been about strict Posix implementations,
it sometimes doesn't even make it easy to implement the semantics in
user land, which is a bit unfortunate.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists