linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] tools/hv: async name resolution in kvp

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: <87zhh7ai26.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 07 Nov 2019 15:15:45 +0100
From:   Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
To:     Olaf Hering <olaf@...fle.de>
Cc:     "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
        "open list\:Hyper-V CORE AND DRIVERS" <linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] tools/hv: async name resolution in kvp_daemon

Olaf Hering <olaf@...fle.de> writes:

> Am Thu, 07 Nov 2019 14:39:11 +0100
> schrieb Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>:
>
>> Olaf Hering <olaf@...fle.de> writes:
>
>> Is it only EAI_AGAIN or do you see any other return values which justify
>> the retry? I'm afraid that in case of a e.g. non-existing hostname we'll
>> be infinitely looping with EAI_FAIL.
>
> I currently do not have a setup that reproduces the failure.
> I think if this thread loops forever, so be it.
>
> The report I have shows "getaddrinfo failed: 0xfffffffe Name or service not known" on the host side.
> And that went away within the VM once "networking was fixed", whatever this means.
> But hv_kvp_daemon would report the error string forever.

Looping forever with a permanent error is pretty unusual...

>
>> > +	pthread_detach(t);  
>> I think this should be complemented with pthread_cancel/pthread_join
>> before exiting main().
>
> If the thread is detached, it is exactly that: detached. Why do you think the main thread should wait for the detached thread?

Ah, my bad: you actually can't join a detached thread, scratch my
comment.

-- 
Vitaly