linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH, RFC] Char dev BKL pushdown v2

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, 19 May 2008 13:38:48 -0700
From:	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
To:	corbet@....net (Jonathan Corbet)
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] Char dev BKL pushdown v2

 > If you're sure that this code doesn't need the BKL (and it kind of
 > looked that way to me), the preferred approach seems to be to put in a
 > comment to that effect so that it's clear that the code has been looked
 > at.  So sending me a patch which does this would be great.

OK, will send such a patch after auditing more carefully.  Just to be
very clear, the issue is to make sure the locking is sufficient to
protect against multiple racing open calls to the same character device?

 - R.
--
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/