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:	Fri, 03 Oct 2014 12:13:39 -0600
From:	Jens Axboe <>
To:	Kent Overstreet <>,
CC:	Benjamin LaHaise <>, Zach Brown <>,
	Jeff Moyer <>, Slava Pestov <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] aio: Fix return code of io_submit() (RFC)

On 2014-10-03 12:08, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> io_submit() could return -EAGAIN on memory allocation failure when it should
> really have been returning -ENOMEM. This could confuse applications (i.e. fio)
> since -EAGAIN means "too many requests outstanding, wait until completions have
> been reaped" and if the application actually was tracking outstanding
> completions this wouldn't make a lot of sense.
> the man page seems to imply that the current behaviour (-EAGAIN on allocation
> failure) has always been the case. I don't think it makes a lot of sense, but
> this should probably be discussed more widely in case applications have somehow
> come to rely on the current behaviour...

We can't really feasibly fix this, is my worry. Fio does track the 
pending requests and does not get into a getevents() forever wait if it 
gets -EAGAIN on submission. But before the fix, it would loop forever in 
submission in -EAGAIN.

How are applications supposed to deal with ENOMEM? I think the answer 
here is that they can't, it would be a fatal condition. AIO must provide 
isn't own guarantee of progress, with a mempool or similar.

Jens Axboe

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