linux-kernel - Re: [JANITOR PROPOSAL] Switch ioctl functions to ->unlocked

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:	Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:50:47 -0400
From:	Kevin Winchester <kjwinchester@...il.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	paolo.ciarrocchi@...il.com, gorcunov@...il.com, jgarzik@...ox.com,
	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [JANITOR PROPOSAL] Switch ioctl functions to ->unlocked_ioctl

Andi Kleen wrote:
> Here's a proposal for some useful code transformations the kernel janitors
> could do as opposed to running checkpatch.pl.
> 
<snip>

I notice that every driver in drivers/ata uses a .ioctl that points to
ata_scsi_ioctl().  I could add the BKL to that function, and then change
all of the drivers to .unlocked_ioctl, but I assume this would be a
candidate to actually clean up by determining why the lock is needed and
removing it if necessary.  Does anyone know off-hand the reason for
needing the lock (I assume someone does or it wouldn't have survived
this long)?  If the lock is absolutely required, then I can write the
patch to add lock_kernel() and unlock_kernel().

-- 
Kevin Winchester

--
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/