netdev - Re: pull request: bluetooth-next 2024-05-10

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: <6642cbb4309a1_205cc6294a4@willemb.c.googlers.com.notmuch>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 22:25:56 -0400
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To: Luiz Augusto von Dentz <luiz.dentz@...il.com>, 
 Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, 
 davem@...emloft.net, 
 linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org, 
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
 Pauli Virtanen <pav@....fi>
Subject: Re: pull request: bluetooth-next 2024-05-10

> > > > As for the "experimental" BT_POLL_ERRQUEUE. This is an addition to the
> > > > ABI, right? So immutable. Is it fair to call that experimental?
> > >
> > > I guess you are referring to the fact that sockopt ID reserved to
> > > BT_POLL_ERRQUEUE cannot be reused anymore even if we drop its usage in
> > > the future, yes that is correct, but we can actually return
> > > ENOPROTOOPT as it current does:
> > >
> > >         if (!bt_poll_errqueue_enabled())
> > >             return -ENOPROTOOPT
> >
> > I see. Once applications rely on a feature, it can be hard to actually
> > deprecate. But in this case it may be possible.
> >
> > > Anyway I would be really happy to drop it so we don't have to worry
> > > about it later.
> > >
> > > > It might be safer to only suppress the sk_error_report in
> > > > sock_queue_err_skb. Or at least in bt_sock_poll to check the type of
> > > > all outstanding errors and only suppress if all are timestamps.
> > >
> > > Or perhaps we could actually do that via poll/epoll directly? Not that
> > > it would make it much simpler since the library tends to wrap the
> > > usage of poll/epoll but POLLERR meaning both errors or errqueue events
> > > is sort of the problem we are trying to figure out how to process them
> > > separately.
> >
> > The process would still be awoken, of course. If bluetoothd can just
> > be modified to ignore the reports, that would indeed be easiest from
> > a kernel PoV.
> 
> @Pauli Virtanen tried that but apparently it would keep waking up the
> process until the errqueue is fully read, maybe we are missing
> something, or glib is not really doing a good job wrt to poll/epoll
> handling.

Perhaps this is because poll is level triggered. Maybe epoll in edge
triggered mode would avoid re-waking for the same outstanding events.