| 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: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:36:03 +0200 From: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com> To: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com> Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>, Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Sysfs and suicidal attributes On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:04:44 +0900, Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com> wrote: > Thanks for enlightening me. Probably what can be done is blocking > regular file sysfs nodes automatically and make it optional (optionally > enable or disable) for bin attrs. Perhaps all files should block by default, but have a knob to disable blocking for special cases (or an attribute flag like ATTR_NOFREEZE?) > >>> Using a freezable workqueue for the callbacks would also localize the > >>> suspend handling. > >> But the freezable workqueue thing isn't really necessary if any of the > >> discussed solutions is implemented, right? > > > > It isn't necessary if the callbacks aren't needed (i.e., if we give > > methods a way to unregister their attribute directly). But if we do > > keep the callbacks, then for safety's sake their workqueue should be > > freezable. I agree. > I see. Let's see how the direct suicide thing works out. If it can be done nicely, I'd prefer it over the workqueue solution - but not if we end up with hard-to-understand code. - 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