[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4649.1573150984@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 18:23:04 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
Stephen Smalley <sds@...ho.nsa.gov>,
Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>, raven@...maw.net,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
keyrings@...r.kernel.org, USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 08/14] pipe: Allow buffers to be marked read-whole-or-error for notifications [ver #2]
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
> > Allow a buffer to be marked such that read() must return the entire buffer
> > in one go or return ENOBUFS. Multiple buffers can be amalgamated into a
> > single read, but a short read will occur if the next "whole" buffer won't
> > fit.
> >
> > This is useful for watch queue notifications to make sure we don't split a
> > notification across multiple reads, especially given that we need to
> > fabricate an overrun record under some circumstances - and that isn't in
> > the buffers.
>
> Hmm. I'm not totally in love with introducing a new error code like
> this for read(), especially if it could affect the kind of pipe that
> is bound to a file in a filesystem. But maybe it's not a problem.
EMSGSIZE might be better?
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists