linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/6] block: push down BKL into .open and .release

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 7 Jul 2010 16:04:03 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] block: push down BKL into .open and .release

On Wednesday 07 July 2010, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I might be missing something, but this doesn't actually push the
> BKL anyway.  It adds duplicate BKL locking inside the ->open and
> ->release methods without actually removing it in the callers.
> 
> That's a pretty pointless thing to do.  If you're not feeling
> confident enough about touching block_dev.c I can look into that
> part of the pushdown, but this patch on it's own is not actually
> useful.

My idea was that the patch in its current form would be less
controversial if it can't break anything, but you're certainly
right that the description doesn't match what the patch does.

I'm now integrating the half of patch 5, as you suggested.
I would much appreciate if you could verify my assumptions
about the blkdev_get/blkdev_put functions in the combined 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/