[lkml]   [2011]   [Sep]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] random: add blocking facility to urandom
    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

     \ /
      Last update: 2011-09-12 19:09    [W:0.021 / U:9.196 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site