linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] timerfd_create.2: Included return value 0

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 30 Mar 2020 23:29:02 +0200
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     "Michael Kerrisk \(man-pages\)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
        "devi R.K" <devi.feb27@...il.com>
Cc:     mtk.manpages@...il.com, linux-man@...r.kernel.org,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, arul.jeniston@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] timerfd_create.2: Included return value 0

Micheal,

"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com> writes:
> On 3/30/20 12:50 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> That's the reason why I rejected the attempt to mitigate that particular
>> 0 tick issue in timerfd as it would just scratch a particular itch but
>> still not provide any guarantee. So having the '0' return documented is
>> the right way to go.
>
> Thanks for the incredibly detailed follow-up Thomas (which all 
> landed in my commit message). I've applied a patch almost exactly
> the same as the text I showed above (and it's pushed to Git).

  "timerfd_create.2: Negetive..."

That first word after the colon looks weird :)

>> All of 2020 is a bust, I expect. Perhaps we see us at a conference
> in 2021 ;-).

Let's see how that evolves and in the worst case we can meet for a beer
once we gained antibodies one way or the other. For now let's stay safe
and all I can offer is a virtual 'Prosit' :)

Thanks,

        tglx