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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 22:15:17 +0200 From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com> To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> Cc: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, jblunck@...e.de, Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com> Subject: Re: [GIT, RFC] Killing the Big Kernel Lock On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 09:05:50PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > General thoughts: > > > > ".llseek = NULL," so far meant "do the Right Thing on lseek() and > > friends, as far as the fs core can tell". Shouldn't we keep it that > > way? It's as close to other ".method = NULL," as it can get, which > > either mean "silently skip this method if it doesn't matter" (e.g. > > .flush) or "fail attempts to use this method with a fitting errno" (e.g. > > .write). > > My series changes the default from 'default_llseek' to 'generic_file_llseek', > which is almost identical, except for taking the inode mutex instead of the > BKL. What if another file operation changes the file pointer while holding the bkl? You're not protected anymore in this case. -- 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