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
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 <[email protected]>