linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [2/11] Add 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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20080519140339.GB24267@infradead.org>
Date:	Mon, 19 May 2008 10:03:39 -0400
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	corbet@....net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [2/11] Add unlocked_fasync

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 02:31:11PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 
> Add a new fops entry point to allow fasync without BKL. While it's arguably
> unclear this entry point is called often enough for it really matters
> it was still relatively easy to do. And there are far less async users
> in the tree than ioctls so it's likely they can be all converted 
> eventually and then the non unlocked async entry point could be dropped.
> 
> There was still the problem of the actual flags change being
> protected against other setters of flags. Instead of using BKL
> for this use the i_mutex now.
> 
> I also added a mutex_lock against one other flags change
> that was lockless and could potentially lose updates.
> 
> There are a couple of potential problems I added comments about on.

I'd rather do a properly flag day and move lock_kernel into the
instances instead of adding this _unlocked gunk.
--
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/