linux-kernel - Re: [2.4 patch] Port of adutux driver from 2.6 kernel to 2.4.

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]

Message-Id: <20071019095313.76990765.zaitcev@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:53:13 -0700
From:	Pete Zaitcev <zaitcev@...hat.com>
To:	"Vitaliy Ivanov" <vitalivanov@...il.com>
Cc:	w@....eu, gregkh@...e.de, linux-usb-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, zaitcev@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [2.4 patch] Port of adutux driver from 2.6 kernel to 2.4.

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 18:26:35 +0300, "Vitaliy Ivanov" <vitalivanov@...il.com> wrote:

> Didn't here anything on this? What is our final decision here?

It's gotten worse, not better. Apparently, you aren't getting the
concept of protecting the open count with a static lock and my
explanations are just not vivid enough or something. So I decided
to fix it myself. Maybe then the patch in C will explain it better
than English. But I didn't have time to do it.

Also, there's an outright bug in the latest version. Your purge
of the wrong lock was incomplete and so there was an unbalanced up().
But this is moot.

So, the version before the latest is borderline acceptable. If Willy
wants to take it, it's fine. I'll fix it up later together with 2.6.

-- Pete
-
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/