On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 04:44:57PM +0000, Dragan Cvetic wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Greg KH [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Thursday 2 May 2019 18:23 > > To: Dragan Cvetic <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected]; Michal Simek <[email protected]>; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; Derek Kiernan <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 04/12] misc: xilinx_sdfec: Add open, close and ioctl > > > > On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 11:04:58PM +0100, Dragan Cvetic wrote: > > > +static int xsdfec_dev_open(struct inode *iptr, struct file *fptr) > > > +{ > > > + struct xsdfec_dev *xsdfec; > > > + > > > + xsdfec = container_of(iptr->i_cdev, struct xsdfec_dev, xsdfec_cdev); > > > + > > > + if (!atomic_dec_and_test(&xsdfec->open_count)) { > > > > Why do you care about this? > > > > And do you really think it matters? What are you trying to protect from > > here? > > There is a request to increase the driver security.
How does this affect "security" in any way? > It is acceptable for us for now, even with non-perfections (will not > be protected if opened twice with dup() or fork()). This is covered > in the documentation. As this really "does nothing", no need to bother the kernel with trying to keep this logic working properly. So please just drop it. thanks, greg k-h
