linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V8 00/33] loop: Issue O_DIRECT aio using bio

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]

Date:	Tue, 15 Oct 2013 13:14:47 -0400
From:	Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@...cle.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Maxim V. Patlasov" <mpatlasov@...allels.com>,
	Zach Brown <zab@...bo.net>, linux-aio@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V8 00/33] loop: Issue O_DIRECT aio using bio_vec

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 09:55:20AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 05:29:10PM -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 08:07:01AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > Ben,
> > > 
> > > are you fine with the series now?  It's been in linux-next for a while
> > > and it would be really helpful to get it in for the avarious places
> > > trying to do in-kernel file aio without going through the page cache.
> > 
> > No, I am not okay with it.  The feedback I provided 2 months ago has yet to 
> > be addressed.
> 
> Maybe I'm missing something, but the only big discussion item was that
> you'd want something totally unrelated (notification for blocking)
> mashed into this patch set.

No, that is not what I was refering to.

> While I agree that getting that would be useful it is something that has
> nothing to do with issueing aio from kernel space and holding this
> patchset hostage for something you'd like to see but that was
> complicated enough that no one even tried it for many years seems
> entirely unreasonable.
> 
> If there are any other issues left that I have missed it would be nice
> to get a pointer to it, or a quick brief.

The item I was refering to is to removing the opcodes used for in-kernel 
purposes from out of the range that the userland accessible opcodes can 
reach.  That is, put them above the 16 bit limit for userspace opcodes.  
There is absolutely no reason to expose kernel internal opcodes via the 
userspace exported includes.  It's a simple and reasonable change, and I 
see no reason for Dave not to make that modification.  Until that is 
done, I will nak the changes.

		-ben
-- 
"Thought is the essence of where you are now."
--
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/