Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 26 Oct 2020 08:32:13 -0600
From:   Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.pizza>
To:     "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Cc:     Sargun Dhillon <sargun@sargun.me>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@redhat.com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>,
        Robert Sesek <rsesek@google.com>,
        Containers <containers@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-man <linux-man@vger.kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Subject: Re: For review: seccomp_user_notif(2) manual page [v2]
Message-ID: <20201026143213.GO1884107@cisco>
References: <63598b4f-6ce3-5a11-4552-cdfe308f68e4@gmail.com>
 <20201026135418.GN1884107@cisco>
 <CAKgNAkgbvuEJ0rkLrZGgCf0OTC8YH2vxemNic8SsDxjh=Z22uw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKgNAkgbvuEJ0rkLrZGgCf0OTC8YH2vxemNic8SsDxjh=Z22uw@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 03:30:29PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> Hi Tycho,
> 
> Thanks for getting back to me.
> 
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 at 14:54, Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.pizza> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 10:55:04AM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> > > Hi all (and especially Tycho and Sargun),
> > >
> > > Following review comments on the first draft (thanks to Jann, Kees,
> > > Christian and Tycho), I've made a lot of changes to this page.
> > > I've also added a few FIXMEs relating to outstanding API issues.
> > > I'd like a second pass review of the page before I release it.
> > > But also, this mail serves as a way of noting the outstanding API
> > > issues.
> > >
> > > Tycho: I still have an outstanding question for you at [2].
> > > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-man/8f20d586-9609-ef83-c85a-272e37e684d8@gmail.com/
> >
> > I don't have that thread in my inbox any more, but I can reply here:
> > no, I don't know any users of this info, but I also don't anticipate
> > knowing how people will all use this feature :)
> 
> Yes, but my questions were:
> 
> [[
> [1] So, I think maybe I now understand what you intended with setting
> POLLOUT: the notification has been received ("read") and now the
> FD can be used to NOTIFY_SEND ("write") a response. Right?
> 
> [2] If that's correct, I don't have a problem with it. I just wonder:
> is it useful? IOW: are there situations where the process doing the
> NOTIFY_SEND might want to test for POLLOUT because the it doesn't
> know whether a NOTIFY_RECV has occurred?
> ]]
> 
> So, do I understand right in [1]? (The implication from your reply is
> yes, but I want to be sure...)

Yes.

> For [2], my question was not about users, but *use cases*. The
> question I asked myself is: why does the feature exist? Hence my
> question [2] reworded: "when you designed this, did you have in mind
> scenarios here the process doing the NOTIFY_SEND might need to test
> for POLLOUT because it doesn't know whether a NOTIFY_RECV has
> occurred?"

I did not.

Tycho