linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/10] block: fix genhd refcounting in blkio_policy_parse_and

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: <20111019220553.GQ25124@google.com>
Date:	Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:05:53 -0700
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc:	axboe@...nel.dk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ctalbott@...gle.com,
	rni@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] block: fix genhd refcounting in
 blkio_policy_parse_and_set()

Hello,

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 12:59:32PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> Are you trying to tie the rules with actual presence of device. Current
> model is that we just check for a valid device while somebody is
> specifying the rule. After that device can go away and rule can still
> be there.  We are just trying to make sure that when you are putting
> the rule, atleast at that time device is present.

Hmmm.... I don't know.  If we're gonna bind rule existence to that of
device, wouldn't it be better to simply not check whether the device
exists?  The current behavior seems pretty confusing to me.

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/