From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756248Ab2BUXKz (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:10:55 -0500 Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com ([74.125.82.44]:51380 "EHLO mail-ww0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753002Ab2BUXKy (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:10:54 -0500 Message-ID: <1329865848.18384.64.camel@edumazet-laptop> Subject: Re: Linux 3.3-rc4 From: Eric Dumazet To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Thomas Meyer , Al Viro , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 00:10:48 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.2- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Le mardi 21 février 2012 à 14:43 -0800, Linus Torvalds a écrit : > On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 5:42 AM, Thomas Meyer wrote: > > > > 2.) while debugging above issue: I did find an minor bug in sys_poll() - nobody did take care of my proposed patch: https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/9/24/35 > > Ok, so I started out forward-porting that patch to current -git > (trivial: it's just that the system call tables are differently > generated now), but the more I look at it, the more I suspect that we > should perhaps just globally fix "sys_poll()" to have the timeout > argument be 'int'. > > Because that *is* the standard user interface (just do "man 2 poll"), > and while all of the git history (and all of the BK history) we've had > it as "long", I suspect we should just fix it. > > So I suspect the correct patch is just as attached instead: make > sys_poll() just take an "int timeout". Any user who tried to use a > long value would already have got truncated by glibc - I just checked. > > Of course, there is a remote possibility that somebody might not use > glibc, and have used "poll()" with the raw system call interface, and > depended on using a 64-bit "long timeout" on 64-bit architectures. > > But quite frankly, that sounds rather unlikely in the extreme. > > Comments? If we do this, and somebody actually reports that they use a > 64-bit timeout, we could always go back to the broken 'long' argument, > and take your patch to fix the compat case. > > Linus Yep, this is what I thought, but when this was raised last september, both Andrew and Andi disagreed. https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/10/6/389