linux-kernel - Re: 2.4 Q: list of open files per inode?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 22 Jul 2007 15:07:47 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...putergmbh.de>
To:	Jacob A <jacoba51-tmp@...oo.com>
cc:	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.4 Q: list of open files per inode?

On Jul 22 2007 05:45, Jacob A wrote:
>
>Ah, yes, this was my intention, to keep the state in filp->private_data.
>But then at a timer routine I wanted to go over all the filps associated with the device
>and check/modify the state. That's why I needed the open files list.

No. For each private_data that you allocate, create a linked list
that also has them. In other words:

struct mystuff {
	struct list_head list;
	int other_fluff;
};

int mydriver_open()
{
	struct mystuff *pd = kmalloc(...);
	filp->private_data = pd;
	list_add(&pd->list);
}

int mydriver_close()
{
	struct mystuff *pd = filp->private_data;
	list_del(&pd->list);
	free(pd);
}

Simple as that. *Of course* this requires that the file descriptor remains
open. But that should not be a problem, would it?

    Jan
-- 

>

    Jan
-- 

>

	Jan
-- 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/