From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
To: Keno Fischer <keno-9DCaDmOhoh+8M3too/+dENBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>
Cc: mtk.manpages-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org,
Matthew Wilcox <willy-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org>,
linux-man-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
linux-fsdevel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List
<linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
viro-RmSDqhL/yNMiFSDQTTA3OLVCufUGDwFn@public.gmane.org,
tuomas-yrGDUoBaLx3QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] stat.2: Document that stat can fail with EINTR
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 14:57:28 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <02dadf3a-d027-1734-e76c-1db7bac8ce1c@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABV8kRyFqU8K_7=rEpbLKE73n6sdsP2ATbNmtLMrRMvSG_fTYA-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
Hi Keno,
On 12/04/2017 10:03 PM, Keno Fischer wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> I was hoping to get a clear statement one way or another from the kernel
> maintainers as to whether an EINTR from stat() is supposed to be allowed
> kernel behavior (hence the RFC in the subject). If it's not, then I don't think
> it should be documented, even if there is buggy filesystems that do at
> the moment.
> So I'd say let's hold off on applying this until more people have had a chance
> to comment. If it would be more convenient for you, feel free to drop
> this from your
> patch queue and if appropriate, I'll resend a non-RFC version of this
> patch for you
> to apply, once a conclusion has been reached.
So, was there any further conclusion on this?
Cheers,
Michael
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 3:58 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
> <mtk.manpages-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> Hello Keno
>>
>> On 12/03/2017 04:15 AM, Keno Fischer wrote:
>>> Resending as plain text (apologies for those receiving it twice, and
>>> those that got
>>> an HTML copy, I'm used to my mail client switching that over
>>> automatically, which
>>> for some reason didn't happen here).
>>>
>>>
>>> This is exactly the discussion I want to generate, so thank you.
>>> I should point out that I'm not advocating for anything other
>>> than clarity of what kernel behavior user space may assume.
>>
>> So, should the documentation patch be applied at this point, or dropped?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 9:25 PM, Matthew Wilcox <willy-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 07:23:59PM -0500, Keno Fischer wrote:
>>>>> The catalyst for this patch was me experiencing EINTR errors when
>>>>> using the 9p file system. In linux commit 9523feac, the 9p file
>>>>> system was changed to use wait_event_killable instead of
>>>>> wait_event_interruptible, which does indeed address my problem,
>>>>> but also makes me a bit unhappy, because uninterruptable waits
>>>>> prevents things like ^C'ing the execution and some debugging
>>>>> tools which depend on being able to cancel long-running operations
>>>>> by sending signals.
>>>>
>>>> Wait, wait, wait. killable is not uninterruptible. It's "can accept
>>>> a signal if the signal is fatal". ie userspace will never see it.
>>>> So, no, it doesn't prevent ^C. It does prevent the debugging tool you're
>>>> talking about from working, because it's handling the signal, so it's not
>>>> fatal.
>>>
>>> This probably shows that I've been in REPL based environments too long,
>>> that catch SIGINT ;). You are of course correct that a fatal SIGINT would
>>> still be delivered.
>>>
>>>>> I realize I'm probably 20 years too late here, but it feels like
>>>>> clarificaion on what to expect from the kernel would still go a long
>>>>> way here.
>>>>
>>>> A change to user-visible behaviour has to be opt-in.
>>>
>>> I agree. However, it was my impression that stat() can return EINTR
>>> depending on the file system. Prior to the referenced commit,
>>> this was certainly true on 9p and I suspect it's not the only network file
>>> system for which this is true (though prior to my experiencing this
>>> with 9p, the only
>>> time I've ever experienced it was on HPC clusters with who knows what
>>> code providing the network filesystem). If it is indeed the case that
>>> an EINTR return from stat() and similar is illegal and should be considered
>>> a kernel bug, a statement to that extent all I'm looking for here.
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Michael Kerrisk
>> Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
>> Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
>
--
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
To: Keno Fischer <keno@juliacomputing.com>
Cc: mtk.manpages@gmail.com, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
linux-man@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, tuomas@tuxera.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] stat.2: Document that stat can fail with EINTR
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 14:57:28 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <02dadf3a-d027-1734-e76c-1db7bac8ce1c@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABV8kRyFqU8K_7=rEpbLKE73n6sdsP2ATbNmtLMrRMvSG_fTYA@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Keno,
On 12/04/2017 10:03 PM, Keno Fischer wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> I was hoping to get a clear statement one way or another from the kernel
> maintainers as to whether an EINTR from stat() is supposed to be allowed
> kernel behavior (hence the RFC in the subject). If it's not, then I don't think
> it should be documented, even if there is buggy filesystems that do at
> the moment.
> So I'd say let's hold off on applying this until more people have had a chance
> to comment. If it would be more convenient for you, feel free to drop
> this from your
> patch queue and if appropriate, I'll resend a non-RFC version of this
> patch for you
> to apply, once a conclusion has been reached.
So, was there any further conclusion on this?
Cheers,
Michael
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 3:58 PM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
> <mtk.manpages@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello Keno
>>
>> On 12/03/2017 04:15 AM, Keno Fischer wrote:
>>> Resending as plain text (apologies for those receiving it twice, and
>>> those that got
>>> an HTML copy, I'm used to my mail client switching that over
>>> automatically, which
>>> for some reason didn't happen here).
>>>
>>>
>>> This is exactly the discussion I want to generate, so thank you.
>>> I should point out that I'm not advocating for anything other
>>> than clarity of what kernel behavior user space may assume.
>>
>> So, should the documentation patch be applied at this point, or dropped?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 9:25 PM, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 07:23:59PM -0500, Keno Fischer wrote:
>>>>> The catalyst for this patch was me experiencing EINTR errors when
>>>>> using the 9p file system. In linux commit 9523feac, the 9p file
>>>>> system was changed to use wait_event_killable instead of
>>>>> wait_event_interruptible, which does indeed address my problem,
>>>>> but also makes me a bit unhappy, because uninterruptable waits
>>>>> prevents things like ^C'ing the execution and some debugging
>>>>> tools which depend on being able to cancel long-running operations
>>>>> by sending signals.
>>>>
>>>> Wait, wait, wait. killable is not uninterruptible. It's "can accept
>>>> a signal if the signal is fatal". ie userspace will never see it.
>>>> So, no, it doesn't prevent ^C. It does prevent the debugging tool you're
>>>> talking about from working, because it's handling the signal, so it's not
>>>> fatal.
>>>
>>> This probably shows that I've been in REPL based environments too long,
>>> that catch SIGINT ;). You are of course correct that a fatal SIGINT would
>>> still be delivered.
>>>
>>>>> I realize I'm probably 20 years too late here, but it feels like
>>>>> clarificaion on what to expect from the kernel would still go a long
>>>>> way here.
>>>>
>>>> A change to user-visible behaviour has to be opt-in.
>>>
>>> I agree. However, it was my impression that stat() can return EINTR
>>> depending on the file system. Prior to the referenced commit,
>>> this was certainly true on 9p and I suspect it's not the only network file
>>> system for which this is true (though prior to my experiencing this
>>> with 9p, the only
>>> time I've ever experienced it was on HPC clusters with who knows what
>>> code providing the network filesystem). If it is indeed the case that
>>> an EINTR return from stat() and similar is illegal and should be considered
>>> a kernel bug, a statement to that extent all I'm looking for here.
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Michael Kerrisk
>> Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
>> Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
>
--
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-19 13:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-12-03 0:23 [PATCH RFC] stat.2: Document that stat can fail with EINTR Keno Fischer
2017-12-03 2:25 ` Matthew Wilcox
2017-12-03 3:15 ` Keno Fischer
2017-12-04 20:58 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
[not found] ` <24ffa267-4d45-e6e8-2441-f82ce47ad725-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
2017-12-04 21:03 ` Keno Fischer
2017-12-04 21:03 ` Keno Fischer
[not found] ` <CABV8kRyFqU8K_7=rEpbLKE73n6sdsP2ATbNmtLMrRMvSG_fTYA-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2017-12-19 13:57 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) [this message]
2017-12-19 13:57 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
[not found] ` <CABV8kRxw97+YCWuZHvcFPsUA7HbtKXjYL+0UVMqa0mC7q2RssA@mail.gmail.com>
2017-12-19 19:28 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
[not found] ` <CABV8kRwbsjW1XbybDx12HmC9Gd1_5_C-KDhdtEz12KSZf-84_Q-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org>
2017-12-04 22:31 ` Matthew Wilcox
2017-12-04 22:31 ` Matthew Wilcox
[not found] ` <20171203002359.GA17037-9DCaDmOhoh+8M3too/+dENBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>
2017-12-03 16:09 ` walter harms
2017-12-03 16:09 ` walter harms
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=02dadf3a-d027-1734-e76c-1db7bac8ce1c@gmail.com \
--to=mtk.manpages-re5jqeeqqe8avxtiumwx3w@public.gmane.org \
--cc=keno-9DCaDmOhoh+8M3too/+dENBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-man-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=tuomas-yrGDUoBaLx3QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=viro-RmSDqhL/yNMiFSDQTTA3OLVCufUGDwFn@public.gmane.org \
--cc=willy-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.