linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH, RFC] fasync() BKL pushdown (take 2)

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]

Date:	Fri, 27 Jun 2008 10:48:32 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] fasync() BKL pushdown (take 2)

Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 21:12:51 +0200
> Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
> 
>> Some devices do state change even when the reference count is > 0.
>> Would need to double check it's all ok with the fasync list.
> 
> OK, I've gone over all of the fasync() definitions again with an eye
> toward convincing myself that the fasync list would not get cleared,
> freed, or otherwise molested if fasync() runs without BKL protection.
> I focused especially on other code (open(), ioctl()) which might still
> run with the BKL.  The result was two more pushdowns in spots where I
> wasn't sure; chance are both are unnecessary.

Ok fine for me then. I haven't read it again in detail, but it sounds
good now.

I still think it would be better to somehow compile break external users,
but that would be only the icing on the cake.

Acked-by: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>

-Andi

--
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/