linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] fs: Add aio priority support for block

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 2 May 2018 10:33:22 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     adam.manzanares@....com
Cc:     viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, bcrl@...ck.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-aio@...ck.org,
        linux-abi-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] fs: Add aio priority support for block_dev

> --- a/fs/aio.c
> +++ b/fs/aio.c
> @@ -1603,6 +1603,15 @@ static int io_submit_one(struct kioctx *ctx, struct iocb __user *user_iocb,
>  		goto out_put_req;
>  	}
>  
> +	if (req->common.ki_flags & IOCB_IOPRIO)
> +		/*
> +		 * The IOCB_IOPRIO flag is set when the user supplied iocb
> +		 * aio_rw_flag field has the RWF_IOPRIO flag set. If so,
> +		 * aio_reqprio is interpreted as a I/O scheduling class and
> +		 * priority.
> +		 */
> +		req->common.ki_ioprio = iocb->aio_reqprio;

Do we need any validation of the field here?

The only other thing I am a bit worried about is bloating struct kiocb
with a field for a relatively uncommon feature, but I can't really
see any much better way to pass it.