linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/7] logfs: push down BKL into ioctl function

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 27 Apr 2010 17:05:50 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Jörn Engel <joern@...fs.org>
Cc:	John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Jan Blunck <jblunck@...il.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] logfs: push down BKL into ioctl function

On Tuesday 27 April 2010, Jörn Engel wrote:
> On Tue, 27 April 2010 16:24:19 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > 
> > I'm sure that logfs doesn't rely on the BKL, but right now,
> > we're just pushing it down.
> 
> So why do you create logfs_unlocked_ioctl in the first place? ;)

I don't want to get caught in discussions on whether any of my patches
might introduce silent bugs in something I'm not maintaining. Also
to put pressure on maintainers by threatening them to make their code
ugly.

If you just add a patch to convert to ->unlocked_ioctl without
the BKL, we can drop this patch ;-)

	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/