linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] block: Make blkdev_issue

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: <x49k4lb1oah.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 21 Oct 2010 12:52:22 -0400
From:	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To:	Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, tytso@....edu, sandeen@...hat.com,
	adilger@...ger.ca, axboe@...nel.dk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: Make blkdev_issue_discard() interruptible

Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com> writes:

> Since the discard may take quite long time, especially with really big
> extents (like the whole device for example), it would be nice to give to
> users the opportunity to abort it. This is especially useful for mkfs,
> when user can not know in advance how long it will take.
>
> In conjunction with mke2fs patch "Inform user about ongoing discard"
> it gives the user all the comfort of being informed about discard and
> being able to abort the operation.

For others reviewing, this is against the block tree's for-next branch.

> ---
>  block/blk-lib.c |    3 +++
>  1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/block/blk-lib.c b/block/blk-lib.c
> index 1a320d2..db44671 100644
> --- a/block/blk-lib.c
> +++ b/block/blk-lib.c
> @@ -91,6 +91,9 @@ int blkdev_issue_discard(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t sector,
>  		bio_get(bio);
>  		submit_bio(type, bio);
>  
> +		if (unlikely(fatal_signal_pending(current)))
> +			ret = -ERESTARTSYS;
> +
>  		wait_for_completion(&wait);
>  
>  		if (bio_flagged(bio, BIO_EOPNOTSUPP))

Given that you're still doing the wait_for_completion, wouldn't it be
better to check for a pending signal after that?

What testing did you perform?

Cheers,
Jeff
--
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/