linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/6] NLM: Initialize completion variable in lockd

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: <170fa0d20803142044i3e4d134fq5b287134248a113f@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 14 Mar 2008 22:44:31 -0500
From:	"Mike Snitzer" <snitzer@...il.com>
To:	"Christoph Hellwig" <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	"Jeff Layton" <jlayton@...hat.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	neilb@...e.de, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] NLM: Initialize completion variable in lockd_up

On Sun, Jan 13, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
>  Btw, lockd() takes BKL just after starting up and only implicitly drops
>  it when blocking.  This seems very dangerous to me and badly wants
>  updating to some real locking scheme..

Can you elaborate on what is meant by lockd "blocking"?  Blocking in
svc_recv() or during a SETLKW or ???

I'm trying to come to terms with why nlmsvc_lock() wouldn't have the
BKL on entry.
--
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/