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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Fri, 04 Apr 2014 08:54:20 +0200
From:	"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <>
To:	Christopher Covington <>
CC:, Richard Hansen <>,
	Steven Whitehouse <>,
	Christoph Hellwig <>,
	"" <>,
	lkml <>,
	Linux API <>,
	Greg Troxel <>,
	Peter Zijlstra <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: msync: require either MS_ASYNC or MS_SYNC

On 04/03/2014 01:51 PM, Christopher Covington wrote:
> On 04/03/2014 04:25 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>> I think the only reasonable solution is to better document existing
>> behavior and what the programmer should do. With that in mind, I've
>> drafted the following text for the msync(2) man page:
>>     NOTES
>>        According to POSIX, exactly one of MS_SYNC and MS_ASYNC  must  be
>>        specified  in  flags.   However,  Linux permits a call to msync()
>>        that specifies neither of these flags, with  semantics  that  are
>>        (currently)  equivalent  to  specifying  MS_ASYNC.   (Since Linux
>>        2.6.19, MS_ASYNC is in fact a no-op, since  the  kernel  properly
>>        tracks  dirty  pages  and  flushes them to storage as necessary.)
>>        Notwithstanding the Linux behavior, portable, future-proof appliā€
>>        cations  should  ensure  that they specify exactly one of MS_SYNC
>>        and MS_ASYNC in flags.

Thanks. Reworded.



Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer;
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training:
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