linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] udf: Replace bkl with a mutex for protect udf_inode

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: <20101106181048.GD13315@infradead.org>
Date:	Sat, 6 Nov 2010 14:10:48 -0400
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Alessio Igor Bogani <abogani@...ware.it>
Cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Tim Bird <tim.bird@...sony.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] udf: Replace bkl with a mutex for protect
 udf_inode_info struct

>  	struct inode vfs_inode;
> +
> +	/* Serialize writer access, replace the old bkl */
> +	struct mutex lock;

mentioning that it replaces bkl is not very useful for someone looking
at the code.  Neither is "Seriazlize writer access".  What would be
more useful is to document what exact fields are supposed to
be protected by this field.  Take a look at hfsplus_inode_info, where
I documented the locking as part of the BKL removal during the 2.6.37
cycle.  

--
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/