linux-kernel - Re: nfsd changes for 2.6.37

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: <AANLkTimPBqafDPxYpZjuym8+-yk4vKYTU15Js-Ux_e6Z@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 26 Oct 2010 14:02:05 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	Bryan Schumaker <bjschuma@...app.com>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: nfsd changes for 2.6.37

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>
> Finally, we can build fs/locks.c, nfs and nfsd with CONFIG_BKL
> disabled.
>
> *not tested*

Ok, please make this so, so that we finally can effectively get rid of
the BKL in this release (I don't really care about the random old
drivers that may be "depends on BKL").

But that obviously requires at least some minimal testing by somebody
who is using NFS heavily, including locking. I assume that the
connectathon tests include file locking? And I presume that the nfs
developers run those at least semi-regularly and could do at least
that kind of minimal testing?

                        Linus
--
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/