linux-kernel - [RFC vfs/for-next 0/1] Only set epoll timeout if it's in the future

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250415184346.39229-1-jdamato@fastly.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2025 18:43:45 +0000
From: Joe Damato <jdamato@...tly.com>
To: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Joe Damato <jdamato@...tly.com>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org (open list)
Subject: [RFC vfs/for-next 0/1] Only set epoll timeout if it's in the future

Greetings:

Sending as an RFC against vfs/for-next because I am not sure which
branch to send this against.

It's possible this should be against vfs.fixes with a Fixes
bf3b9f6372c4 ("epoll: Add busy poll support to epoll with socket
fds."), but I am not sure.

The commit message explains the issue in detail, please see the commit
message for details.

If this patch is appropriate, please let me know:
  - which branch to generate the patch against (I suspect vfs/for-next
    is wrong),
  - whether to include the fixes tag mentioned above or if this is
    considered "new code" instead of a bug fix and I'll omit the fixes.

I'll re-send as instructed (without this cover letter)... or not if this
patch is incorrect/not desirable :)

Thanks,
Joe

Joe Damato (1):
  eventpoll: Set epoll timeout if it's in the future

 fs/eventpoll.c | 10 +++++++++-
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

base-commit: 2e72b1e0aac24a12f3bf3eec620efaca7ab7d4de
-- 
2.43.0