linux-kernel - Re: Block integrity patches for 2.6.28

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]

Message-ID: <20081002162955.GI19428@kernel.dk>
Date:	Thu, 2 Oct 2008 18:29:56 +0200
From:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To:	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc:	neilb@...e.de, agk@...rceware.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	dm-devel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: Block integrity patches for 2.6.28

On Thu, Oct 02 2008, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> >>>>> "Jens" == Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> writes:
> 
> Jens> As far as I can tell, most of that commit is still fine. You
> Jens> want bdev_get_integrity() in blkdev.h, the 3 other moves and the
> Jens> unused bdev_get_tag_size() do not look like they are being used
> Jens> by this patch set.
> 
> bdev_get_integrity() and bdev_get_tag_size() are being used by
> stacking drivers and filesystems to prepare I/O.  It's correct that
> none of the in-tree stuff currently uses bdev_get_tag_size().  That's
> coming with the btrfs support.  If you want to pull that out for now
> and have me put that back later in that's ok.  Just adds another
> two-stage merge dependency for a later cycle.

Well, I would not have added it in the first place, but it was there. I
already did the bdev_get_integrity() addon instead of the revert, so
lets please just keep it at that.

> bdev_integrity_enabled() and blk_integrity_tuple_size() are only being
> used from within bio-integrity.c and can move there.  I originally put
> them in blkdev.h because they are block device functions and not bio
> ditto.
> 
> Want me to submit a new patch shuffling bdev_get_integrity() back
> where it came from?

Do we need any on top of current for-2.6.28?

I'll apply your series with the modified patch #5, it'll probably need a
hand edit or two since I didn't revert the commit in question, but
should be trivial to resolve.


-- 
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/