linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 4/5] BKL: use no BKL in llseek

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: <20100603070608.GA12123@infradead.org>
Date:	Thu, 3 Jun 2010 03:06:08 -0400
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Jan Blunck <jblunck@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC 4/5] BKL: use no BKL in llseek

On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 02:13:18AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> We have shown that the BKL in default_llseek and other
> llseek operations never protects against concurrent access
> from another function:

>From VFS POV no to the default_llseek conversion.  As told you and
others of the BKL brigade don't change this thing but get rid of it
entirely.  I was under the impression we had agreed on a road map
for that anyway.  Please don't forget that overall kernel improvement
should at least be a side effect of your big sweap and clean.

--
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/