linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] ->poll() bugs

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+55aFw0Le2=XfpwagPz6YMHMSncCwpThFx9hFaxhD+i5fEfkw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 7 Mar 2015 12:53:14 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] ->poll() bugs

On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Most of the catch consists of ->poll() instances that return -E...; there's
> also an unpleasant mess in net/9p/trans_fd.c and a braino in sunrpc
> unexpectedly caught by the same annotations.

Hmm. I do wonder if we should just *allow* ->poll() to return an
error, and just turn it into "all bits set"?

But if getting sparse to catch them all isn't *too* painful and the
patch doesn't end up being horribly big, then I guess that's ok.

> Linus, what do you think about putting those annotations into mainline during
> the next cycle?

Just how big is that annotation patch? We have a *lot* of poll
functions, don't we? If they all need to be changed, just how bad is
the noise for that?

                     Linus
--
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/