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, 17 Jan 2008 13:12:48 +0100
From:	Mathieu SEGAUD <>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Convert EXT2 to use unlocked_ioctl

Vous m'avez dit r├ęcemment :

> Vous m'avez dit r├ęcemment :
>> On Thursday 17 January 2008, you wrote:
>>> Change ext_ioctl() to be an unlocked_ioctl(), explicitly
>>> exposing BKL's uses.
>>> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Segaud <>
>> You are now calling lock_kernel() twice in case of ext2_compat_ioctl(),
>> which calls back into ext2_ioctl with the BKL already held.
>> This is allowed with the BKL, but really bad style that you should
>> avoid. I assume the ext3 and ext4dev versions of your patch have
>> the same issue, but I didn't check in detail.
> yep, they do. I noticed this nested calls. I guess I will add
> _extX_compat_ioctl() running with no BKL's which would be used by both
> extX_ioctl() and extX_compat_ioctl().
> Any comments on such a strategy ? thanks a lot for the reminder :)

Well as I am not awake enough, this would sum up to get rid of
lock/unlock_kernel() around extX_ioctl() calls...
Will repost with theses changes.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists