linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] rtc: remove BKL for ioctl()

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20080625174139.62a0d07f@bike.lwn.net>
Date:	Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:41:39 -0600
From:	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc:	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, rtc-linux@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtc: remove BKL for ioctl()

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 23:30:17 +0100
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:

> For an ioctl case which should never be blocking for long periods it
> shouldn't be _interruptible in the first place, that will just
> introduce bizarre and weird bugs in application code.

OTOH, my sysadmin youth left me with some painful memories of having to
reboot important systems to get rid of a process with some vital
resource in a D-state death grip.  So I have a certain aversion to
putting uninterruptible waits in places where they aren't really
necessary.

Perhaps this is a good candidate for mutex_lock_killable()?

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/