linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/9] block: implement bio_associate

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20120220143622.GB10342@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:36:22 -0500
From:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@...gle.com>, axboe@...nel.dk,
	ctalbott@...gle.com, rni@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] block: implement bio_associate_current()

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 02:57:35PM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:

[..]
> blkcg doesn't allow that anyway (it tries but is racy) and I actually
> was thinking about sending a RFC patch to kill CLONE_IO.

Hi  Tejun,

I have a question about CLONE_IO.

In copy_io(), we don't share the io_context if "current" does not have
task->io_context set. Does that mean if even if I specify CLONE_IO, two
threads might not share io context depending on when clone() happened? Or
I am reading the code wrong.

Thanks
Vivek
--
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/