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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200801101102.16971.eike-kernel@sf-tec.de>
Date:	Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:02:11 +0100
From:	Rolf Eike Beer <eike-kernel@...tec.de>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	paolo.ciarrocchi@...il.com, gorcunov@...il.com
Subject: Re: [JANITOR PROPOSAL] Switch ioctl functions to ->unlocked_ioctl

Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Can you explain the rationale behind that running on the BKL? What type
> > of
>
> It used to always run with the BKL because everything used to
> and originally nobody wanted to review all ioctl handlers in tree to see if
> they can run with more fine grained locking. A lot probably can though.
>
> > things needs to be protected so that this huge hammer is needed? What
> > would be an earlier point to release the BKL?
>
> That depends on the driver. A lot don't need BKL at all and
> in others it can be easily eliminated. But it needs case-by-case
> review of the locking situation.
>
> The goal of the proposal here is just to make it more visible.

So if I write my own driver and have never heard of ioctls running on BKL 
before I can rather be sure that I just can change the interface of the ioctl 
function, put it in unlocked_ioctl and are fine? Cool.

Eike

Download attachment "signature.asc " of type "application/pgp-signature" (195 bytes)