linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] readv.2: Document RWF

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 4 Oct 2023 10:36:55 -0700
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To:     John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     martin.petersen@...cle.com, djwong@...nel.org, david@...morbit.com,
        himanshu.madhani@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] readv.2: Document RWF_ATOMIC flag

On 10/4/23 01:47, John Garry wrote:
> On 03/10/2023 20:25, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> Additionally, shouldn't it be documented what value will be stored in
>> errno if the atomic write has been rejected?
> 
> So I was treating all atomic writes errors which don't follow the 
> "rules" as low-level I/O errors, which is -EIO. However, yes, I can 
> document this. Further to that, based on description of an error for 
> O_DIRECT, which is to return -EINVAL for misaligned, I think that 
> -EINVAL may be better for any atomic write rule violations. OK?

That sounds good to me.

Thanks,

Bart.