linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/7] check for O_NONBLOCK in all read

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: <x49wq93tg1e.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 16 Sep 2014 17:24:29 -0400
From:	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	Milosz Tanski <milosz@...in.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-aio@...ck.org,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Volker Lendecke <Volker.Lendecke@...net.de>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] check for O_NONBLOCK in all read_iter instances

Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> writes:

>> Again, the right return value for the O_DIRECT case is EINVAL.
>
> Is it?  We define -EAGAIN as it would block, which is defintively true
> for O_DIRECT reads.

It will *always* block.  So I don't think it's valid to ask for a
non-blocking read on a file opened with O_DIRECT.  What am I missing?

Cheers,
Jeff
--
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/