On Mon 14-11-11 07:16:26, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 01:34:46PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Mon 14-11-11 20:15:56, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > > @@ -2407,6 +2407,10 @@ static ssize_t generic_perform_write(struct file *file,
> > > > iov_iter_count(i));
> > > >
> > > > again:
> > > > + if (signal_pending(current)) {
> > >
> > > signal_pending looks more useful than fatal_signal_pending in that it
> > > covers normal signals too. However it's exactly the broader coverage
> > > that makes it an interface change -- will this possibly break casually
> > > written applications?
> > Yeah, this is upto discussion. Historically, write() (or any other system
> > call) could have returned EINTR. In fact, write() to a socket can return
> > EINTR even now. But you are right that we didn't return EINTR from write()
> > to a regular file. So if you prefer to never return EINTR from a write to a
> > regular file, I can change the check since I'm also slightly worried that
> > some badly written app can notice.
>
> No, this is not up for discussion. You can't return short writes (or
> reads). This is why the 'fatal_signal_pending' API exists -- if the
> signal is fatal, the task is never returned to, so its bug (not checking
> the return from read/write) is not exposed.
By "can't return" you mean userspace need not be expecting it so we
shouldn't break it or is there some standard which forbids it? Just
curious...
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
