linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/6] Adjust block device size after an online resize of a disk.

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:	Fri, 05 Sep 2008 09:36:37 -0600
From:	Andrew Patterson <andrew.patterson@...com>
To:	Andre Noll <maan@...temlinux.org>
Cc:	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	axboe@...nel.dk, andmike@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, mike.miller@...com,
	genanr@...phone.com, jmoyer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] Adjust block device size after an online resize of
	a disk.

On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 15:12 +0200, Andre Noll wrote:
> On 14:27, Andrew Patterson wrote:
> >  int revalidate_disk(struct gendisk *disk)
> >  {
> > +	struct block_device *bdev;
> >  	int ret = 0;
> >  
> >  	if (disk->fops->revalidate_disk)
> >  		ret = disk->fops->revalidate_disk(disk);
> 
> Maybe we should return early at this point if revalidate_disk()
> failed or fops->revalidate_disk is NULL.

We won't run check_disk_size_change() if we return early here. So the
question is would anyone ever make this call if they didn't have a
revalidate_disk routine? This in not the case in the current code. I
could go either way.

> 
> > +	bdev = bdget_disk(disk, 0);
> > +	if (!bdev)
> > +		return ret;
> 
> We might return success here even if bdev is NULL. OTOH, as the callers
> of revalidate_disk() do not check the return value anyway (although at
> least tapeblock_revalidate_disk() might return a negative value) it's
> probably also an option to change the return type of revalidate_disk()
> to void.
> 

The revalidate_disk() wrapper tries to maintain compatibility with the
current interface. It might make sense to change it given no one
actually really seems to use the return value. I guess I am very wary
about effectively changing the interface of the lower-level
revalidate_disk() routines, at least in this particular patchset.

> Andre

--
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/