linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sony_pi: Remove the BKL from sonypi_misc

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 Oct 2009 00:06:32 +0200 (CEST)
From:	John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
cc:	Arnd Bergmann <arndbergmann@...glemail.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sony_pi: Remove the BKL from sonypi_misc_open



On Wed, 21 Oct 2009, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:41:07PM +0200, John Kacur wrote:
> > > What about a pusdown of default_lseek attribution for these
> > > fops that don't have any llseek() (and rename it to
> > > deprecated_default_lseek() )
> > > 
> > > Because we can probably fix these fops one by one but what
> > > about the next drivers that will have no llseek() ?
> > > 
> > > We can't attribute default_llseek() by default anymore for
> > > further fops that are to come.
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > Frederic, I think it is still useful to explicity set to no_llseek, 
> > drivers that don't use llseek.
> 
> 
> Yeah, I agreed.
> 
> 
>  
> > I also have to agree with you, that we should no longer be using a 
> > default_llseek that relies on the BKL.
> > 
> > That is a rather large effort though. All drivers that don't specify an 
> > llseek function, need to either set it to no_llseek, or as you are 
> > proposing a deprecated default_llseek that uses the bkl.
> > 
> > thinking of how to start this.
> > 
> > John
> 
> 
> This is a rather large effort indeed but this pushdown seems
> the only way to remove default_llseek as the default llseek()
> callback.
> 
> The more we wait, the more code we'll need to review and fix.
> 

Okay, I'm sure there is something wrong in this methodology, but it's late 
at night. At least for a ballpark figure, hopefully it's right.

Files that mentions "file_operations" - 
Files that mention "file_operations" and mention "llseek"
= 1172 - 596 = 572 (in my particular git repo)

So, over 550 files that need to be set to no_llseek, locked_llseek, or 
unlocked_llseek. Yikes!

[jkacur@...ho rt.linux.git]$ git-grep -l file_operations | grep -v 
Documentation | wc -l
1172
[jkacur@...ho rt.linux.git]$ git-grep -l llseek $(git-grep -l 
file_operations | grep -v Documentation) | wc -l
596

--
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/