MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAJNi4rNSHf3N6KrBNcVXKo-wjSPmZa2xan9WPmrER8Ttir-MDA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJNi4rO6TiZFFKTcW3kGgha2Rc0nTsXRLyeqAyYrN3foLbExSQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJNi4rO6TiZFFKTcW3kGgha2Rc0nTsXRLyeqAyYrN3foLbExSQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   richard clark <richard.xnu.clark@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Mar 2023 11:31:45 +0800
Message-ID: <CAJNi4rNyDWY5xrVr0qZADNTSjhTko=OXVUDRmvuDKWTNX-NU1w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Question about select and poll system call
To:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, vlobanov@speakeasy.net,
        hch@lst.de, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, dipankar@in.ibm.com,
        akpm@osdl.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

Adding more people...

I did some homework and found that the FD_SETSIZE question seems
related with below 2 commits:
1. 4e6fd33b7560 ("enforce RLIMIT_NOFILE in poll()")
"POSIX states that poll() shall fail with EINVAL if nfds > OPEN_MAX.
In this context, POSIX is referring to sysconf(OPEN_MAX), which is the
value of current->signal->rlim[RLIMIT_NOFILE].rlim_cur in the linux
kernel...". IOW, the nfds suggested by POSIX is kind of configurable,
making sense for Linux kernel to link it with rlimit.
2. bbea9f69668a ("fdtable: Make fdarray and fdsets equal in size")
This commit uses the fdt->max_fds instead of FD_SETSIZE suggested by
POSIX, but gives no reason to do that.

Curiously I did some tests on Linux and macOS, the testing code snippet:

static int test(void)
{
    int err =3D 0;
    int nfds =3D FD_SETSIZE;
    fd_set rfds, wfds, efds;

    FD_ZERO(&rfds);
    FD_ZERO(&wfds);
    FD_ZERO(&efds);

    err =3D select(nfds + 1, &rfds, &wfds, &efds, NULL);
    if (err < 0)
        perror("select failed");
    return err;

}

The test results as:
Linux
~~~~
Blocked at select

macOS
~~~~~~
select failed: Invalid argument

Thanks!

On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 10:31=E2=80=AFAM richard clark
<richard.xnu.clark@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Adding linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org ... for more possible feedbac=
k:)
>
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 10:28=E2=80=AFAM richard clark
> <richard.xnu.clark@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, (Sorry, not find the maintainers for this subsystem, so to the lkml=
)
> >
> > There're two questions about these system calls:
> > 1. According to https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xsh/selec=
t.html:
> > ERRORS
> > [EINVAL]
> >       The nfds argument is less than 0 or greater than FD_SETSIZE.
> > But the current implementation in Linux like:
> >        if (nfds > FD_SETSIZE)
> >                nfds =3D FD_SETSIZE
> > What's the rationale behind this?
> >
> > 2. Can we unify the two different system calls? For example, using
> > poll(...) to implement the frontend select call(...), is there
> > something I'm missing for current implementation? The Cons and Pros,
> > etc
> >
> > Thanks,