linux-kernel - Re: lseek() on debugfs entries in 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 16 Mar 2011 12:41:58 +0100
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Alexey Mikhailov <karma@...ois.botik.ru>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: lseek() on debugfs entries in 2.6.37

On Wednesday 16 March 2011, Alexey Mikhailov wrote:
> Thank you for reply. Obvious patches like this one fixed it
> 
>    static struct file_operations fops_timesync = {
>       .owner = THIS_MODULE,
>       .open = fop_open_timesync,
>       .read = fop_read_timesync,
>   +   .llseek = default_llseek,
>    };
> 
> I assume there is the reason you need to specify this
> explicitly as it will break much out-of-kernel code.

Yes, this was required as a prerequisite to removing the big
kernel lock. Generally speaking, there is very little care taken
to prevent out of tree modules from breaking. If you have device
drivers that you care about, I recommend submitting them for
inclusion in drivers/staging or as a proper driver in the mainline
kernel.

	Arnd
--
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/