On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 11:12:21AM +1300, Michael Kerrisk wrote: > On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Davide Libenzi <davidel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Feb 2009, Michael Kerrisk wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Davide Libenzi <davidel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > On Mon, 9 Feb 2009, Michael Kerrisk wrote: > >> > > >> >> > @@ -186,12 +187,9 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE2(timerfd_create, int, clo > >> >> > BUILD_BUG_ON(TFD_CLOEXEC != O_CLOEXEC); > >> >> > BUILD_BUG_ON(TFD_NONBLOCK != O_NONBLOCK); > >> >> > > >> >> > - if (flags & ~(TFD_CLOEXEC | TFD_NONBLOCK)) > >> >> > + if ((flags & ~TFD_FLAGS_SET) || > >> >> > + invalid_clockid(clockid)) > >> >> > return -EINVAL; > >> >> > >> >> Oh! Does this mean that in 2.6.2[789] it wasn't possible to use > >> >> TFD_TIMER_ABSTIME? > >> > > >> > No, sorry, my fault. Patch is wrong. In "create" ATM we accept only > >> > FCNTL-like flags. In "settime" we get TFD_TIMER_ABSTIME (that needs a > >> > check too for EINVAL). > >> > >> That last piece should be a separate patch, that also gets pushed back > >> into -stable. Do you agree? > > > > Hmm, it's a check for extra bits that do not cause any harm. Dunno if it > > fits -stable requirements. You should ask Greg. > > I agree that it's not a critical fix. The point is of course that if > other flags are evntually added to timerfd_settime(), an application > needs a way of checking for kernel support / lack of support (a la the > recent discussion of eventfd "[patch/rfc] eventfd semaphore-like > behavior"). It seems to me it would be good to have that check work > as far back as possible in older kernels. If that check is to be added > to 2.6.29, it seems reasonable to push it back to the current -stable > kernels. > > Greg? Sounds reasonable to me. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
