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:	Thu, 21 Dec 2006 08:53:05 +0100
From:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To:	Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@...jp.nec.com>
Cc:	agk@...hat.com, mchristi@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	dm-devel@...hat.com, j-nomura@...jp.nec.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/8] rqbased-dm: allow blk_get_request() to be  called from interrupt context

On Wed, Dec 20 2006, Kiyoshi Ueda wrote:
> Hi Jens,
> 
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 19:49:17 +0100, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> wrote:
> > > > Big NACK on this - it's not only really ugly, it's also buggy to pass
> > > > interrupt flags as function arguments. As you also mention in the 0/1
> > > > mail, this also breaks CFQ.
> > > > 
> > > > Why do you need in-interrupt request allocation?
> > >  
> > > Because I'd like to use blk_get_request() in q->request_fn()
> > > which can be called from interrupt context like below:
> > >   scsi_io_completion -> scsi_end_request -> scsi_next_command
> > >   -> scsi_run_queue -> blk_run_queue -> q->request_fn
> > > 
> > > Generally, device-mapper (dm) clones an original I/O and dispatches
> > > the clones to underlying destination devices.
> > > In the request-based dm patch, the clone creation and the dispatch
> > > are done in q->request_fn().  To create the clone, blk_get_request()
> > > is used to get a request from underlying destination device's queue.
> > > By doing that in q->request_fn(), dm can deal with struct request
> > > after bios are merged by __make_request().
> > > 
> > > Do you think creating another function like blk_get_request_nowait()
> > > is acceptable?
> > > Or request should not be allocated in q->request_fn() anyway?
> > 
> > You should not be allocating requests from that path, for a number of
> > reasons.
> 
> Could I hear the reasons for my further work if possible?
> Because of breaking current CFQ?  And is there any reason?

Mainly I just don't like the design, there are better ways to achieve
what you need. The block layer has certain assumptions on the context
from which rq allocation happens, and this breaks it. As I also
mentioned, you cannot pass flags around as arguments. So the patch is
even broken as-is.

-- 
Jens Axboe

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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ