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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20080315063403.GA6942@infradead.org>
Date:	Sat, 15 Mar 2008 02:34:03 -0400
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...il.com>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	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 Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 10:44:31PM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> 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 ???

Blocking in kernel context means sleeping aka scheduling away.  So in the
sentence above that means BKL is dropped once lockd sleeps on a
syncronization primitive the first time.

--
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/