linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink

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:	Fri, 02 Oct 2009 23:12:52 +0900
From:	lenrek@...com
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	lenrek@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers/char/pcmcia/synclink_cs.c: BKL pushdown?


On 2009/10/02, at 22:20, Paul Fulghum wrote:

> Alan Cox wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 19:37:21 +0900
>> lenrek@...com wrote:
>>
>>> I found the counterpart of function mgslpc_wait_until_sent
>>> in drivers/char/synclinkmp.c (wait_until_sent) is modified to
>>> issue (un)lock_kernel.  This patch does the same modification.
>>>
>>> However, I'm afraid similar modifications are necessary further on
>>> functions
>>> mgslpc_ioctl and mgslpc_write_room.
>>
>> The push down work normally eliminated BKL calls that were  
>> demonstrably
>> not needed and left it in anywhere that needed thought. Do those
>> functions still really need the BKL ?
>
> No, these functions use a device specific spinlock (info->lock)
> when needed. Not even mgslpc_wait_until_sent needs BKL.

How about the BKL calls in synclinkmp.c, synclink.c, and synclink_gt.c?
Can they be safely eliminated?
--
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/