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]

Date:	Wed, 28 Jan 2009 05:23:37 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:	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 01/27, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 04:14:39 +0100
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > I'll try to make the patch tomorrow, but the problem is that I am not
> > sure this is not too ugly.
>
> FWIW, I'm partway through a new attempt using bitops for f_flags, moving
> FASYNC flag handling into fasync_helper(), and doing away with
> additional locks altogether.  I have to get past the publication
> deadline before I can finish it, though.

Great. I'd be happy to agree with another approach.

But please don't forget it is not strictly necessary f_op->fasync()
must use fasync_helper(). And we have users (pipe_rdwr_fasync) which
call fasync_helper() twice.

Oleg.

--
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/