Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1031498AbWLGF4E (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Dec 2006 00:56:04 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1031422AbWLGF4D (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Dec 2006 00:56:03 -0500 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.25]:51579 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1031498AbWLGF4B (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Dec 2006 00:56:01 -0500 Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 21:55:55 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Michael Halcrow Cc: LKML , trevor.highland@gmail.com, tyhicks@ou.edu Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] eCryptfs: Public key; transport mechanism Message-Id: <20061206215555.85d584ca.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20061206230638.GA9358@us.ibm.com> References: <20061206230638.GA9358@us.ibm.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.7 (GTK+ 2.8.17; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1880 Lines: 49 On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 17:06:38 -0600 Michael Halcrow wrote: > This is a re-submission of the same public key patches (updated for > 2.6.19-rc6-mm2) that were submitted for review a while back. I made a number of comments last time around, some temperate, some not. I trust the temperate ones were addressed? Is there really no way in which any other kernel subsystem will ever want functionality of this nature? > This is the transport code for public key functionality in > eCryptfs. It manages encryption/decryption request queues with a > transport mechanism. Currently, netlink is the only implemented > transport. I wouldn't view this as an adequate changelog for this sort of work, frankly. Not by a long shot. You've told us very briefly what the patches do. You haven't told us why they do it, nor how they do it. What design decisions went into this? What options were considered and eliminated and why? etc. It's just a great lump of code dumped in our laps. >From a quick scan (and I cannot review in more depth because the code is a complete mystery to this reviewer): > + mutex_init(&ecryptfs_msg_ctx_lists_mux); > + mutex_lock(&ecryptfs_msg_ctx_lists_mux); That's a bizarre thing to do. If there's really any other process which can take that mutex, the mutex_init() just trashed it. If there is no other such process, the mutex_lock() is unneeded. There should never be a need to runtime-initialise a static mutex - just use DEFINE_MUTEX. ecryptfs now has a dependency upon netlink. There's no CONFIG_NETLINK. If CONFIG_NET=n && CONFIG_ECRYPTFS=y is possible, it won't build. - 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/