* [PATCH 0/6 RFC] Remove the BKL from sys_execve on various architectures
@ 2009-10-12 22:32 John Kacur
2009-10-12 22:55 ` Frederic Weisbecker
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: John Kacur @ 2009-10-12 22:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel, Thomas Gleixner
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker, Vincent Sanders, Ingo Molnar,
Christoph Hellwig, Alan Cox, Andrew Morton, Jonathan Corbet,
Mike Frysinger, David Howells, Yoshinori Sato, Roman Zippel,
Greg Ungerer, David Howells, Koichi Yasutake
Most of the mainstream architectures such as x86, x86-64 and ppc, do not
use the bkl in sys_execve.
All of the architectures that still use it, look like copy-and-pastes from
a time when the mainstream architectures did use it. In addition, all of
the call-outs appear to be to generic functions that are safe to use
without the bkl. Therefore, I believe it should be safe to simply remove.
However, the bkl does some surprising things, and I could be wrong. So
please have a look at let us know if there is a reason why your
architecture does indeed need the bkl in sys_execve.
Even better, grab the relevant patch and do some testing and report back.
Thank you in advance.
John Kacur
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 0/6 RFC] Remove the BKL from sys_execve on various architectures
2009-10-12 22:32 [PATCH 0/6 RFC] Remove the BKL from sys_execve on various architectures John Kacur
@ 2009-10-12 22:55 ` Frederic Weisbecker
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Frederic Weisbecker @ 2009-10-12 22:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: John Kacur
Cc: linux-kernel, Thomas Gleixner, Vincent Sanders, Ingo Molnar,
Christoph Hellwig, Alan Cox, Andrew Morton, Jonathan Corbet,
Mike Frysinger, David Howells, Yoshinori Sato, Roman Zippel,
Greg Ungerer, Koichi Yasutake
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 12:32:59AM +0200, John Kacur wrote:
> Most of the mainstream architectures such as x86, x86-64 and ppc, do not
> use the bkl in sys_execve.
>
> All of the architectures that still use it, look like copy-and-pastes from
> a time when the mainstream architectures did use it. In addition, all of
> the call-outs appear to be to generic functions that are safe to use
> without the bkl. Therefore, I believe it should be safe to simply remove.
>
> However, the bkl does some surprising things, and I could be wrong. So
> please have a look at let us know if there is a reason why your
> architecture does indeed need the bkl in sys_execve.
>
> Even better, grab the relevant patch and do some testing and report back.
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
> John Kacur
They are all build around the same pattern (the same code actually)
that looks pretty safe. I'm perhaps missing something tricky too, but
as far as I can tell:
Reviewed-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-10-12 22:56 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-10-12 22:32 [PATCH 0/6 RFC] Remove the BKL from sys_execve on various architectures John Kacur
2009-10-12 22:55 ` Frederic Weisbecker
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox