lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [May]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]   [less markup]   [headers]   [forward]  
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Unserializing ioctl() system calls
FromAndi Kleen <>
DateSat, 22 May 2004 10:03:15 +0200
"Spinka, Kristofer" <kspinka@style.net> writes:

> I noticed that even in the 2.6.6 code, callers to ioctl system call
> (sys_ioctl in fs/ioctl.c) are serialized with {lock,unlock}_kernel().
>
> I realize that many kernel modules, and POSIX for that matter, may not
> be ready to make this more concurrent.

POSIX doesn't care how the kernel implements locking.

> I propose adding a flag to indicate that the underlying module would
> like to support its own concurrency management, and thus we avoid
> grabbing the BKL around the f_op->ioctl call.

Better would be probably a unlocked_ioctl() entry point in f_op. Should
be pretty easy to implement.

There is also the additional issue that on 64bit systems with 32bit
userland the ioctl emulation currently relies on the BKL.

-Andi

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:03    [from the cache]
©2003-2008