[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200910221550.05524.arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:50:04 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arndbergmann@...glemail.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arndbergmann@...glemail.com>,
John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sony_pi: Remove the BKL from sonypi_misc_open
On Thursday 22 October 2009, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> The right (although quite complicated) thing is to return -ESPIPE from
> vfs_llseek if no ->llseek method is present, or even better also
> disallowing pread/pwrite by default. It'll need a quite substantial
> audit and is best done by different types of inodes - S_IFIFO is easy,
> SIFDIR at least has very few instances, S_IFREG usually wants a real
> llseek (generic_file_llseek in most cases) and directories also need
> a llseek method that takes i_mutex so it protects against namespace
> operations.
Is it safe to assume that file_operations without a read() or write()
method also don't need llseek?
There are over 200 instances of file_operations that have a no read,
write or lseek operations and we can easily detect that in vfs_llseek,
calling no_llseek by default.
Testing for S_IFREG will not work well for debugfs, which is probably
a large number of the cases that do not want an llseek method.
Arnd <><
--
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