Re: [PATCH v3] getrandom system call wrapper [BZ #17252]

[Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>]

On 10/03/2016 07:51 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 09/09/2016 10:21 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-09-08 at 13:44 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > I have made the system call wrapper a cancellation point.  (If we
> > > implement the simpler getentropy interface, it would not be a
> > > cancellation point.)
> >
> > Why did you do that?  Even though the system call is new, and thus can't
> > have been used in existing code directly, making it a cancellation point
> > will make all callers cancellation points too.  Therefore, for example,
> > we couldn't use it in the implementation of any POSIX functions (that
> > are not cancellation points) in glibc without having to disable and
> > restore the cancellation state around it every time.
> > It might be even more convenient to have one wrapper that is a
> > cancellation point and one that is not.
> >
> > Can't we just let cancellation rot in its corner?
>
> I will second what Florian has suggested, I also think getrandom() should
> be a cancellation point.

Thanks.

Torvald, do these arguments convince you?

Are there any remaining objects about the system call as posted?

Thanks,
Florian