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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 27 Mar 2014 12:53:58 +0000
From:	David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:	'Rainer Weikusat' <rweikusat@...ileactivedefense.com>
CC:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] net: unix: non blocking recvmsg() should not return
 -EINTR

From: Rainer Weikusat 
> Considering all of this, the trylock-approach seems best to me. OTOH,

No - using trylock() is definitely wrong.
If there are two messages queued and two processes/threads try to
read them, you don't want one of them being given EAGAIN.

If we ignore the case where there are some blocking and some
non-blocking readers (which doesn't work for other reasons)
then it would actually make sense for the non-blocking
code to wait uninterruptibly (possibly with a timeout that
should never expire) and for the blocking code to wait
interruptibly (as currently).

Then problem of which error code to return is moot.

	David

--
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