linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Remove BKL from fs/locks.c

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]

Date:	Tue, 14 Sep 2010 17:55:56 -0400
From:	Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove BKL from fs/locks.c

On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 23:24 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 September 2010 22:53:31 Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Oh well. I guess there's no incremental way to do things sanely. And
> > nobody has patches to fix those users, I guess.
> 
> The only critical user is fs/lockd, I can easily handle the rest.
> When I talked to Bruce and Trond during LinuxCon, they told me that
> it should be possible to separate the bits of fs/lockd that lock
> against fs/locks.c and convert the former to use lock_flocks().


The NFSv4 client is quite ready to just switch to using lock_flocks()
now. There is nothing that depends on the magical properties of the BKL.
I do also have someone working on BKL removal for the NLM/lockd client
and am hoping that should be ready in a couple of weeks time.

The timeline for the server is up to Bruce, however.

> That would be enough to actually apply this patch without the
> nasty CONFIG_BKL check and with changes to the few other
> consumers of file locks. My original plan was to have my current
> patch in -next until that happens.

Would it be possible to at least merge a patch that defines
lock_flocks() (even if it just is an alias for lock_kernel()), so that
we can convert those bits of the lock recovery code that need to peek
into the inode->i_flock list ASAP?

Cheers
  Trond
--
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/