netdev - Re: [PATCH 6/6] fs: replace f_ops->get_poll_head with a static ->f_poll

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: <CA+55aFwnN5h=+BWNNG1aQ2d-6Yts+2e==ycnC3BEmBMcGbaP7g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 Jun 2018 14:39:25 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, LKP <lkp@...org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] fs: replace f_ops->get_poll_head with a static
 ->f_poll_head pointer

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 2:30 PM Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > Again, locking is permitted. It's not great, but it's not against the rules.
>
> Me: a *LOT* of ->poll() instances only block in __pollwait() called (indirectly)
> on the first pass.
>
> You: They are *all* supposed to do it.
>
> Me: <examples of instances that block elsewhere>

Oh, I thought you were talking about the whole "first pass" adding to
wait queues, as opposed to doing it on the second pass.

The *blocking* is entirely immaterial. I didn't even react to it,
because it's simply not an issue.

I don't understand why you're even hung up about it.

The only reason "blocking" seems to be an issu eis because AIO has
shit-for-brains and wanted to do poll() under the spinlock.

But that's literally just AIO being confused garbage. It has zero
relevance for anything else.

                Linus