linux-kernel - [RFC] updated DM table alignment validation patches [Was: Re: linux-next: block tree build failure]

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090526135402.GA3086@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 26 May 2009 09:54:02 -0400
From:	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
To:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
	Alasdair G Kergon <agk@...hat.com>, dm-devel@...hat.com
Subject: [RFC] updated DM table alignment validation patches [Was: Re:
	linux-next: block tree build failure]

On Mon, May 25 2009 at  1:54am -0400,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:

> Hi Martin,
> 
> On Mon, 25 May 2009 01:38:26 -0400 "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com> wrote:
> >
> > The accessor function patch in my patch series was explicitly put in
> > place to enable changing the API without affecting users.  And we've
> > tried to be careful about staging these patches in the right order
> > throughout all the involved trees.
> 
> What you really need is to have the patches that introduce the accessors
> in a tree common to all the possible users of them.  In practise this
> often means Linus' tree - in which case the patches should introduce noop
> versions of the accessors.  If that is possible, Linus is quite happy to
> take those patches after which all the other users can take the
> conversions into their own tree and everyone is happy.  :-)
> 
> Currently the patches that introduce the accessors only exist in the
> block tree ...

I've refreshed the DM linux-next patches that were off Martin's radar;
they are available here (and are also attached):

http://people.redhat.com/msnitzer/patches/dm-topology/dm-table-ensure-targets-are-aligned-to-logical_block_size.patch
http://people.redhat.com/msnitzer/patches/dm-topology/dm-table-validate-device-logical_block_size.patch

These updated patches still seem useful (as negative checks independent
of the topology code).

There is more work that is needed in DM and LVM2 userspace in order to
properly support and utilize the new topology infrastructure.  So I'm
also taking a much closer look at the needed changes now and should have
it sorted out in the coming days.

Mike



View attachment "dm-table-ensure-targets-are-aligned-to-logical_block_size.patch" of type "text/plain" (2872 bytes)

View attachment "dm-table-validate-device-logical_block_size.patch" of type "text/plain" (3176 bytes)