linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] pipe: read/write_iter() handler should check for IOCB

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]

Date:   Thu, 30 Apr 2020 12:47:03 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pipe: read/write_iter() handler should check for
 IOCB_NOWAIT

On 4/30/20 11:58 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 10:24:46AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> Pipe read/write only checks for the file O_NONBLOCK flag, but we should
>> also check for IOCB_NOWAIT for whether or not we should handle this read
>> or write in a non-blocking fashion. If we don't, then we will block on
>> data or space for iocbs that explicitly asked for non-blocking
>> operation. This messes up callers that explicitly ask for non-blocking
>> operations.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
> 
> Wouldn't this be better?

Yeah, that's probably a better idea. Care to send a "proper" patch?

-- 
Jens Axboe