| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <200801090140.58864.arnd@arndb.de> Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 01:40:58 +0100 From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, apw@...dowen.org Subject: Re: [JANITOR PROPOSAL] Switch ioctl functions to ->unlocked_ioctl On Tuesday 08 January 2008, Andi Kleen wrote: > > Thanks, Andi! I think it'd very useful change. > > Reminds me this is something that should be actually flagged > in checkpatch.pl too > > Andy, it would be good if checkpatch.pl complained about .ioctl = > as opposed to .unlocked_ioctl = ... This is rather hard, as there are different data structures that all contain ->ioctl and/or ->unlocked_ioctl function pointers. Some of them already use ->ioctl in an unlocked fashion only, so blindly warning about this would give lots of false positives. > Also perhaps if a whole new file_operations with a ioctl is added > complain about missing compat_ioctl as a low prioritity warning? > (might be ok if it's architecture specific on architectures without > compat layer) Also, not every data structure that provides a ->ioctl callback also has a ->compat_ioctl, although there should be fewer exceptions here. Arnd <>< -- 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