linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [8/18] BKL-removal: Remove BKL from remote

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:	Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:56:05 +0000
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
	Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
	Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>, swhiteho@...hat.com,
	sfrench@...ba.org, vandrove@...cvut.cz,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [8/18] BKL-removal: Remove BKL from remote_llseek

> > No specific spec, just general quality of implementation.
> 
> I completely agree.  If one thread writes A and another writes B then the
> kernel should record either A or B, not ((A & 0xffffffff00000000) | (B &
> 0xffffffff))

Agree entirely: the spec doesn't allow for random scribbling in the wrong
place. It doesn't cover which goes first or who "wins" the race but
provides pwrite/pread for that situation. Writing somewhere unrelated is
definitely not to spec and not good.
--
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/