linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 10/20] hpfs: replace BKL with a global mutex

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: <20110126165223.GA6695@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 26 Jan 2011 08:52:24 -0800
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/20] hpfs: replace BKL with a global mutex

On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 01:50:42PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 January 2011, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > I don't think that's a very good idea, there's danger
> > of holding it over IO and that would be really bad (as in like MINIX[1])
> > 
> > It would be better to do it the i810 way and check for the number of
> > CPUs at module init time and refuse to run if it's > 1
> 
> I don't see much value of one evil over the other, but why not. The code
> is going away anyway unless someone cleans it up further.

I think it's fine because systems running OS/2 likely only have
one CPU. This way these guys (if they exist) won't see any regression.

-Andi
-- 
Andi Kleen
Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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/