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: <20090128104414.09aee3f9@bike.lwn.net>
Date:	Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:44:14 -0700
From:	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, hch@...radead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk,
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] Remove fasync() BKL usage, take 3325

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:36:18 -0500
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:

> ->f_flags is an unsigned int and the bit macros need an unsigned
> long. Increasing the size of struct file for this is probably a bad
> idea.

That was my concern too, initially, but akpm told me it was OK.  From
earlier in the thread:

> > The problem there is that this bloats struct file, and that seemed like
> > something worth avoiding.  
> 
> Not a big deal, really.  There's one of these for each presently-open file.
> It's not like dentries and inodes, which we cache after userspace has
> closed off the file handles.

If others disagree, and using bitops is not an idea which will fly, I'd
sure like to know sooner rather than later.

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/