linux-kernel - Re: BKL: remove extraneous #include <smp

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:	Wed, 17 Nov 2010 14:23:23 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: BKL: remove extraneous #include <smp_lock.h>

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com> wrote:
>
> smp_lock.h was removed from hardirq.h.  smp_lock.h provided the function prototype
> for kernel_locked().  Should source files now #include <linux/smp_lock.h> ?
> even when not being built for SMP?

Hmm. I think that part was a mistake, but I suspect the simplest fix
for it is to simply get rid of "kernel_locked()". It has no other
users than the hardirq.h one, so let's just move it there.

Something like the attached?

NOTE! The reason I _only_ take the CONFIG_LOCK_KERNEL version from
smp_lock.h is because:

 - LOCK_KERNEL is defined by init/Kconfig as "(SMP || PREEMPT) && BKL"

 - inside hardirq.h we only use "kernel_locked()" inside "PREEMPT && BKL"

 - so "PREEMPT && BKL" implies "LOCK_KERNEL"

 - so the !LOCK_KERNEL kernel_locked() case is irrelevant.

unless I did a thinko somewhere.

Does this work in all configurations? TOTALLY UNTESTED! Caveat emptor.

                 Linus

View attachment "patch.diff" of type "text/x-patch" (1209 bytes)