linux-kernel - Re: [announce] "kill the Big Kernel Lock (BKL)" tree

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:	Wed, 14 May 2008 22:17:30 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [announce] "kill the Big Kernel Lock (BKL)" tree

> > So you just stick unlock_kernel()/lock_kernel() around the call
> > to TTY (or similar to the entry points)
> > 
> 
> ... assuming that the ISDN code doesn't assume lock continuity across 
> the TTY call.

And procfs and between the tty and the net config code and ...

Keeping the BKL just in legacy places doesn't work. A counting mutex (ie
one you can self multi-lock) might be very useful to fix some of these
however as once we push it down to the point of being a driver specific
lock we can just give it a driver mutex
--
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/