[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d4d188512ea84f243310dd9464922a82@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2020 11:35:16 +0100
From: Roman Penyaev <rpenyaev@...e.de>
To: Max Neunhöffer <max@...ngodb.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christopher Kohlhoff <chris.kohlhoff@...arpool.io>,
lars@...ngodb.com
Subject: Re: epoll_wait misses edge-triggered eventfd events: bug in Linux 5.3
and 5.4
On 2020-02-03 22:03, Max Neunhöffer wrote:
> Hi Roman,
>
> Thanks for your quick response. This sounds fantastic!
>
> The epollbug.c program was originally written by my colleague Lars
> Maier and then modified by me and subsequently by Chris Kohlhoff. Note
> that the bugzilla bug report contains altogether three variants which
> test epoll_wait/epoll_ctl in three different ways. It might be
> sensible to take all three variants for the test suite.
I checked 3 variants, they do same things: epoll_ctl() races against
epoll_wait(), and this is exactly the bug reproduction, regardless
actual read() from a file descriptor or EPOLLET flag set.
> I cannot imagine that any of the three authors would object to this, I
> definitely do not, the other two are on Cc in this email and can speak
> for themselves.
I adapted the logic from epollbug.c and included it into
epoll_wakeup_test.c
test suite, you should have received the email: "[PATCH 3/3] kselftest:
introduce new epoll test case". Please, take a look or ask your
colleague
to take a look. If no objections - then fine, leave as is.
Thanks.
--
Roman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists