[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49D36329.20004@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 21:50:49 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
CC: axboe@...nel.dk, bharrosh@...asas.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tj@...el.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] blk-map: reimplement blk_rq_map_user() using blk_rq_map_user_iov()
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
>> * Because each call to bio_map/copy_user() is independent, segment
>> limit check was done only per each bio, so it was possible to create
>> requests which are larger than the driver and hardware limits, which
>> could lead to disastrous outcome.
>
> What do you mean? blk_rq_append_bio properly checks the segment and
> limit, I think.
Right, ll_back_merge_fn() does that. Sorry about that.
>> * Layers under FS may call blk_rq_map*() functions during request
>> processing. Under severe memory pressure and with enough bad luck,
>> this can lead to deadlock. As fs bvec pool is quite small, the
>> possibility isn't completely theoretical.
>>
>> This patch reimplement blk_rq_map_user() in terms of
>> blk_rq_map_user_iov() which doesn't support multi-bio mappping and
>> drop multi bio handling from blk_rq_unmap_user(). Note that with the
>> previous patch to remove bio max size limit and to add null mapping
>> support to blk_rq_map_user_iov(), this change doesn't remove any
>> functionality.
>
> I don't think that we can drop multi bio handling from
> blk_rq_unmap_user(). It may make some users angry. Mike Christie added
> it because it was necessary.
The only user of blk_rq_append_bio() is scsi_lib.c. Is Mike
Christie's code chaining bio's directly into rq?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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