linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH, RFC] Remove fasync() BKL usage, take 3325

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:	Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:09:35 +0100
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	andi@...stfloor.org, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, oleg@...hat.com,
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] Remove fasync() BKL usage, take 3325

> OK, replacing a lock_kernel() with a spin_lock(&global_lock) is pretty
> straightforwad.  But it's really really sad.  It basically leaves a great
> big FIXME in there.  It'd be better to fix it.

Also it might be that it's even worse than the BKL.

> 
> We don't have a handy lock in struct file which could be borrowed.
> 
> - We could add one
> 
> - We could borrow file->f_path.dentry->d_inode->i_lock
> 
> - We could convert that field to long and use bitops (sounds nice?)

It would still require a bitlock because some state in the low
level fasync needs to be protected.

Oleg has a proposal to do this using a flag bit which seemed
reasonable to me.

-Andi

--
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/