linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 14/14] Pramfs: XIP operations

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:15:03 -0700
From:	Jared Hulbert <jaredeh@...il.com>
To:	Marco <marco.stornelli@...il.com>
Cc:	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>,
	Linux Embedded <linux-embedded@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Daniel Walker <dwalker@....ucsc.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/14] Pramfs: XIP operations

> I know. It wasn't my intention to introduce it but as I said in my first
> patch I've done a porting of this code from 2.6.10 and to remove it I
> need time to analyze well the code to avoid deadlock and so on. If
> someone would like to help me I'd really appreciate it. However I see
> the use of BKL even in other recent "mainlined" fs as ext4, so I
> preferred to move the porting effort on other areas. However it's the
> first item on my todo list.


Why do you need the lock in pram_find_and_alloc_blocks() to begin
with?  Why wouldn't a mutex work?
--
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/