linux-kernel - Re: Re: [PATCH v2] io_uring: Avoid polling configuration errors

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: <20240715023902.1105124-1-xue01.he@samsung.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 10:39:02 +0800
From: hexue <xue01.he@...sung.com>
To: axboe@...nel.dk
Cc: asml.silence@...il.com, hch@...radead.org, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v2] io_uring: Avoid polling configuration errors

>My stance is still the same - why add all of this junk just to detect a
>misuse of polled IO? It doesn't make sense to me, it's the very
>definition of "doctor it hurts when I do this" - don't do it.

>So unless this has _zero_ overhead or extra code, which obviously isn't
>possible, or extraordinary arguments exists for why this should be
>added, I don't see this going anywhere.

Actually, I just want users to know why they got wrong data, just a warning of an error,
like doctor tell you why you do this will hurt. I think it's helpful for users to use tools
accurately.
and yes, this should be as simple as possible, I'll working on it. I'm not sure if I made
myself clear and make sense to you?

--
hexue