linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH, RFC] Remove fasync() BKL usage, take 3325

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: <20090122230145.7e434dee@tpl>
Date:	Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:01:45 -0700
From:	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, andi@...stfloor.org,
	viro@...IV.linux.org.uk, oleg@...hat.com,
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] Remove fasync() BKL usage, take 3325

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 06:54:04 +0100
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:

> The state needs to be protected while the per driver ->fasync callback
> runs, otherwise the bit can get out of sync with what the driver
> thinks it is.
> 
> Mind you imho the best way would be to move the bit manipulation for
> that into the drivers, but that would require to change them all.

You know, I'm not sure why I didn't look into that.  Do we want drivers
reaching directly into struct file and making changes?  Maybe a helper
would be better.  Hmm, maybe we could call it fasync_helper() and it
could just do the right thing?  Will investigate further...

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/