[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202010281553.A72E162A7@keescook>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 15:56:06 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Cc: Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.pizza>,
"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
linux-man <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@...hat.com>,
Robert Sesek <rsesek@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: For review: seccomp_user_notif(2) manual page
On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 11:31:01AM +0100, Jann Horn wrote:
> Or I guess we could also just set O_NONBLOCK on the fd by default?
> Since the one existing user is eventloop-based...
I thought about that initially, but it rubs me the wrong way: it
violates least-surprise for me. File descriptors are expected to be
default-blocking. It *is* a special fd, though, so maybe it could work.
The only case I can think of it would break would be ioctl-loop case
that is already buggy in that it didn't handle non-zero returns?
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists