linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] Add polling support to pidfd

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]

Date:   Sat, 20 Apr 2019 01:20:01 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>, Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        kernel-team <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
        Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] Add polling support to pidfd

On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 1:11 AM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 2:20 PM Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org> wrote:
> >
> > According to Linus, POLLHUP usually indicates that something is readable:
>
> Note that if you use the legacy interfaces (ie "select()"), then even
> just a plain POLLHUP will always just show as "readable".
>
> So for a lot of applications, it won't even matter. Returning POLLHUP
> will mean it's readable whether POLLIN is set or not (and EPOLLERR
> will automatically mean that it's marked both readable and writable).
>
> In fact, I'd argue that not a lot of people care about the more
> esoteric bits at all. If your poll function does POLLIN and POLLOUT,
> it's fine. Anything else is specialized enough that most people simply
> won't care. Don't overdesign things too much. You need to have a major
> reason to care about the other POLL bits.
>
> It's also worth noting that POLLERR/POLLHUP/POLLNVAL cannot be masked
> for "poll()". Even if you only ask for POLLIN/POLLOUT, you will always
> get POLLERR/POLLHUP notification. That is again historical behavior,
> and it's kind of a "you can't poll a hung up fd". But it once again
> means that you should consider POLLHUP to be something *exceptional*
> and final, where no further or other state changes can happen or are
> relevant.

Which kind of makes sense for process exit. So the historical behavior
here is in our favor and having POLLIN | POLLHUP rather fitting.
It just seems right that POLLHUP indicates "there can be
no more state transitions".

Christian