linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/6] procfs: Push down the bkl from ioctl

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]

Message-ID: <20100330182710.GC5078@nowhere>
Date:	Tue, 30 Mar 2010 20:27:12 +0200
From:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] procfs: Push down the bkl from ioctl

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:37:27AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 March 2010, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Push down the bkl from procfs's ioctl main handler to its users.
> > Only three procfs users implement an ioctl (non unlocked) handler.
> > Turn them into unlocked_ioctl and push down the Devil inside.
> 
> Looks good to me. I would have used a single unlock and return statement
> in i8k_ioctl and isdn_divert_ioctl, with goto instead of adding an
> unlock to each return, but it doesn't matter much.


I did that first, but actually that didn't make much difference:

ret = foo;            unlock_kernel()
goto end;      VS     return foo;




> 
> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>


Thanks.

--
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/