linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3, RFC] misc char dev BKL pushdown

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 18:21:16 -0600
From:	corbet@....net (Jonathan Corbet)
To:	"Mike Frysinger" <vapier.adi@...il.com>
Cc:	"Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@....net>,
	"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>,
	"Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3, RFC] misc char dev BKL pushdown 

Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com> wrote:

> this open func already has a spinlock protecting it.  doesnt that mean
> we dont need the bkl in it ?

The existence of a spinlock is a good sign.  But, until somebody has
looked at the code and verified that said lock is really protecting
everything, it's best to leave the BKL protection (which has always been
there, just at a higher level) in place.

jon
--
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/