| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 11:18:35 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] pty: Lock the devpts bits privately On 05/03/2012 02:22 PM, Alan Cox wrote: > From: Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com> > > This is a private pty affair, we don't want to tangle it with the tty_lock > any more as we know all the other non tty locking is now handled by the vfs > so we too can move. > > Signed-off-by: Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com> > + mutex_lock(&devpts_mutex); > devpts_pty_kill(tty->link); > + mutex_unlock(&devpts_mutex); > + mutex_lock(&devpts_mutex); > + tty = devpts_get_tty(pts_inode, idx); > + mutex_unlock(&devpts_mutex); > + mutex_lock(&devpts_mutex); > tty = tty_init_dev(ptm_driver, index); > + mutex_unlock(&devpts_mutex); Conceptually this seems fine, but it would seem cleaner to me to push this mutex into the called functions in devpts; I suspect the lock could be eliminated or at least be made per instance there (which would make massive-container people happy...) -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists