On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 10:02:43AM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote: > Ted Ts'o wrote: > >Yeah, but there are userspace programs that depend on urandom not > >blocking... so your proposed change would break them. > I'm already consigned to the fact this isn't going to fly, but I'm > still curious to know examples of programs that are going to break > here, for my own education. Its already possible for urandom reads > to fail as the code is now (-ERESTARTSYS and -EFAULT are possible), > so a sane program ought to already be handling error cases, though > not -EAGAIN, which this would add. It's not just a question of error handling existing, it's also about the expectations the system has for the behaviour of the file - if urandom is expected to always be able to return data an application is likely to rely on the fact that it's effectively non-blocking anyway and not bother setting non-blocking mode at all and so have no graceful handling for this. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
