[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0910130021440.3658@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 00:32:59 +0200 (CEST)
From: John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Vincent Sanders <vince@...tec.co.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>,
Greg Ungerer <gerg@...inux.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Koichi Yasutake <yasutake.koichi@...panasonic.com>
Subject: [PATCH 0/6 RFC] Remove the BKL from sys_execve on various
architectures
Most of the mainstream architectures such as x86, x86-64 and ppc, do not
use the bkl in sys_execve.
All of the architectures that still use it, look like copy-and-pastes from
a time when the mainstream architectures did use it. In addition, all of
the call-outs appear to be to generic functions that are safe to use
without the bkl. Therefore, I believe it should be safe to simply remove.
However, the bkl does some surprising things, and I could be wrong. So
please have a look at let us know if there is a reason why your
architecture does indeed need the bkl in sys_execve.
Even better, grab the relevant patch and do some testing and report back.
Thank you in advance.
John Kacur
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists