linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] eventfd: convert to ->write

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]

Message-ID: <20201119184610.sxc7utcsfwsqvwu5@lion.mk-sys.cz>
Date:   Thu, 19 Nov 2020 19:46:10 +0100
From:   Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] eventfd: convert to ->write_iter()

On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 06:03:15PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 07:00:19PM +0100, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> > While eventfd ->read() callback was replaced by ->read_iter() recently by
> > commit 12aceb89b0bc ("eventfd: convert to f_op->read_iter()"), ->write()
> > was not replaced.
> > 
> > Convert also ->write() to ->write_iter() to make the interface more
> > consistent and allow non-blocking writes from e.g. io_uring. Also
> > reorganize the code and return value handling in a similar way as it was
> > done in eventfd_read().
> 
> But this patch does not allow non-blocking writes.  I'm really
> suspicious as you're obviously trying to hide something from us.

I already explained what my original motivation was and explained that
it's no longer the case as the third party module that inspired me to
take a look at this can be easily patched not to need kernel_write() to
eventfd - and that it almost certainly will have to be patched that way
anyway. BtW, the reason I did not mention out of tree modules in the
commit message was exactly this: I suspected that any mention of them
could be a red flag for some people.

I believed - and I still believe - that this patch is useful for other
reasons and Jens added another. Therefore I resubmitted with commit
message rewritten as requested, even if I don't need it personally. I'm
not hiding anything and I don't have time for playing your political
games and suffer your attacks. If they are more important than improving
kernel code, so be it. I'm annoyed enough and I don't care any more.

Michal Kubecek