linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] snapshot: Push BKL down into ioctl handlers

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: <20080523120452.6feefed0@core>
Date:	Fri, 23 May 2008 12:04:52 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...l.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] snapshot: Push BKL down into ioctl handlers

> >  
> > +	lock_kernel();
> > +
> 
> Hm, well, I admit I'm a bit ignorant as far as the chardev locking is
> concerned, but can you please tell me why would that be wrong if we didn't call
> lock_kernel() here at all?

I've just been pushing the lock down. If the code already has enough
internal locking for things like multiple ioctls in parallel then you can
probably kill it entirely - but that needs someone who knows that driver
well to decide and evaluate.
--
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/