| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 22:51:13 +0000 From: Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@...ileactivedefense.com> To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, David.Laight@...LAB.COM, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: unix: non blocking recvmsg() should not return -EINTR Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> writes: > On Wed, 2014-03-26 at 22:06 +0000, Rainer Weikusat wrote: > >> That would be a seriously bizarre idea. The thread of execution which >> does the supposed-to-be-non-blocking call shouldn't become blocked for >> an indefinite time. Which means it should not wait indefinitely for a >> thread which - in turn - waits indefinitely for an external event (and >> hence, the original problem should never have existed to begin with as >> there would neither be an opportunity nor a reason to interrupt in the >> non-blocking case). > > > This is not what your program do. > > Your program does a read() on a blocking fd. It does both, actually: The forked process calls read while the socket is still blocking, the other process calls read after it was switched to non-blocking. This can easily be determined with strace. Again, please stop dumping your infiltered rage onto me just because I happen to disagree with you. You won't change that. -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists