linux-kernel - Re: [JANITOR PROPOSAL] Switch ioctl functions to ->unlocked

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:	Wed, 9 Jan 2008 02:19:46 +0100
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, apw@...dowen.org
Subject: Re: [JANITOR PROPOSAL] Switch ioctl functions to ->unlocked_ioctl

On Wednesday 09 January 2008, Andi Kleen wrote:
> I imagined it would check for 
> 
> +struct file_operations ... = { 
> +      ...
> +       .ioctl = ...
> 
> That wouldn't catch the case of someone adding only .ioctl to an 
> already existing file_operations which is not visible in the patch context, 
> but that should be hopefully rare. The more common case is adding
> completely new operations

Right, this would work fine. We can probably even have a list of
data structures that work like file_operations in this regard.

	Arnd <><
--
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/