Re: f_ops flag to speed up compatible ioctls in linux kernel

[Lee Revell]

On Wed, 2004-09-01 at 17:23, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Hello!
> Quoting r. Albert Cahalan (albert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) "Re: f_ops flag to speed up compatible ioctls in linux kernel":
> > Michael S. Tsirkin writes:
> > > Quoting Lee Revell [snip -- that was excessive]
> > 
> > >> By adding a new ioctl you are adding a new use of
> > >> the BKL. It has been suggested on dri-devel that
> > >> this should be fixed.  Is this even possible?
> > >
> > > I dont know - can the lock be released before the
> > > call to filp->f_op->ioctl ?
> > >
> > > I assume the reason its there is for legacy
> > > code - existing ioctls may be assuming the BKL
> > > is taken, but maybe there could be another flag
> > > in f_ops to let sys_ioctl release the lock before
> > > doing the call ...
> > >
> > > Like this - would that be safe?
> > 
> > Yes. It is proven to work.
> 
> Now that I look at the ioctl.c code, I see a several get_user/put_user
> inside the ioctl which are thus done while BKL is held.
> But I thought get_user can block?
> 
> Why is this not a bug?
> 

You can sleep while holding the BKL, it is automatically dropped and
reacquired.  The BKL has some magic properties, it does not work like a
regular spinlock.

Lee

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