[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgcvn1_1kCkyourNCKeH+KrzSMRvc-ai_NLU4RGZT_XBg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 19:16:05 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Cc: Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@...mail.de>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexey Gladkov <gladkov.alexey@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Please pull proc and exec work for 5.7-rc1
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 5:00 PM Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> Wouldn't you end up livelocked in the scenario that currently deadlocks?
The test case that we already know is broken, and any fix will have to
change anyway?
Let's just say that I don't care in the least.
But Bernd's patch as-is breaks a test-case that currently *works*,
namely something as simple as
echo xyz > /proc/<pid>/attr/something
and honestly, breaking something that _works_ and may be used in
reality, in orderf to make a known buggy user testcase work?
Because no, "write()" returning -EAGAIN isn't ok.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists