netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: unix: non blocking recvmsg() should not return -EINTR

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: <20140326.170514.1793472148242469413.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Wed, 26 Mar 2014 17:05:14 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	rweikusat@...ileactivedefense.com
Cc:	eric.dumazet@...il.com, David.Laight@...LAB.COM,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: unix: non blocking recvmsg() should not return
 -EINTR

From: Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@...ileactivedefense.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 19:46:05 +0000

> As I already wrote, this is a theoretical problem with no really
> satisfactory solution minus noting that both 'nonblocking sockets' and
> 'multithreaded kernels' are somewhat alien concepts when considering the
> system where EINTR originated (AFAIK).

I completely disagree.

EINTR always means that you asked for a blocking operation, and a
signal arrived meanwhile.

Once you invert the "blocking" part of that set of conditrions, EINTR
becomes an impossible event.

I don't have time to check BSD, but I'm very confident that these are
the rules codified in their socket syscall layer too.

I'm going to apply Eric's patch.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html