linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] TTY:vt: convert remain take_over_console's users to do_take_over

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, 22 May 2013 00:18:50 +0800
From:	Wang YanQing <udknight@...il.com>
To:	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
Cc:	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, sfr@...b.auug.org.au,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] TTY:vt: convert remain take_over_console's users to
 do_take_over_console

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:48:58AM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On 05/21/2013 10:42 AM, Wang YanQing wrote:
> > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 09:10:33AM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
> >> I would rather revert dc9641895abb which purported to delete
> >> _unneeded_ functions than have this. Obviously the functions
> >> were needed.
> >>
> >
> > Hi Peter, this series patches' goal is to reduce codes'
> > redundance and function duplication. But if we keep take_over_console,
> > then we have to rewrite it as a trivial wrapper over do_take_over_console,
> > or we have to keep bind_con_driver and register_con_driver, and this
> > will bring use codes' redundance.
> >
> > And if we rewrite take_over_console as a wrapper over
> > do_take_over_console, it is so trivial, delete it and let kernel
> > use the unified version of APIs will simplify the APIs.
> 
> Except now you're spreading the brokenness that is console_lock()
> over many more source files than the single-use case of
> do_take_over_console().

> The actual interface is take_over_console(); the _workaround_ is
> exposing do_take_over_console() for fbcon to wrap.

This _workaround_ willn't work, take_over_console will hold console_lock internal,
but do_take_over_console need caller hold console_lock, then we can't rewrite 
do_take_over_console as a wrap base on take_over_console. 

But the reverse is ok. So if we have to do it, then the actual interface 
is do_take_over_console, and the "_workaround_" is exposing take_over_console 
as a wrap base on do_take_over_console.
--
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/