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]
Date:	Mon, 04 Jun 2007 21:26:18 +0200
From:	Thomas Gleixner <>
To:	Stephen Hemminger <>
Cc:	Ulrich Drepper <>,
	Maximilian Engelhardt <>,
	Michael Buesch <>,
	linux-kernel <>,
	linux-wireless <>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <>,
	Jeff Garzik <>,
	Gary Zambrano <>,,
	Andrew Morton <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>
Subject: Re: iperf: performance regression (was b44 driver problem?)

On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 21:00 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > 
> > Yes, the following patch makes iperf work better than ever.
> > But are other broken applications going to have same problem.
> > Sounds like the old "who runs first" fork() problems.
> Not really. The fork() "who runs first" problem is nowhere specified.
> usleep(0) is well defined:
> .... If the value of useconds is 0, then the call has no effect.
> So the call into the kernel has been wrong for quite a time.

Just for clarification: I'm not saying that we should break the (broken)
user space ABI. I'm going to work out a patch which prints out a warning
(limited number per boot) and emulating the old behavior by a call to
yield() along with an entry into (mis)feature-removal.txt.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists