From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261935AbVATUDA (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:03:00 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261931AbVATUBe (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:01:34 -0500 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.31.123]:40090 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261905AbVATT7O (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:59:14 -0500 Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 16:48:54 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: Ulrich Drepper Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" , Linux Kernel Subject: Re: short read from /dev/urandom Message-ID: <20050119154854.GD476@openzaurus.ucw.cz> References: <41E7509E.4030802@redhat.com> <20050114191056.GB17481@thunk.org> <41E833F4.8090800@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <41E833F4.8090800@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > >What do you think? Does gcc -pg calls sigaction with SA_RESTART, to > >avoid changing the behaviour of the programs that it is profiling? > > Profiling certainly uses SA_RESTART. But this was just one possible > problem case. > > I'm concerned that there is isgnificant code out there relying on the > no-short-read promise. And perhaps more importantly, other > implementations promise the same. Well, but such code will need to be fixed, anyway; pre-2.6.10 kernels will stay here for quite a long time. Pavel -- 64 bytes from 195.113.31.123: icmp_seq=28 ttl=51 time=448769.1 ms