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:	Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:14:18 -0800
From:	David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
CC:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, corbet@....net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk,
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] Remove fasync() BKL usage, take 3325

Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 04:14:39AM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> I didn't send the actual patch. The idea is,
>>
>> 	can't we use O_LOCK_FLAGS bit? I agree, it is a bit ugly,
>> 	and I won't insist if you don't like is.
>>
>> 		static inline int try_lock_f_flags(struct file *file)
>> 		{
>> 			return !test_and_set_bit(O_LOCK_FLAGS, file->f_flags);
>> 		}
> 
> ->f_flags is an unsigned int and the bit macros need an unsigned long.
> Increasing the size of struct file for this is probably a bad idea.
> 

Could that be seen as a deficiency in the bit macros?

Could we modify them so that they worked on unsigned int as well?  I 
know we could for some architectures.

David Daney
--
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/