linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] block: add a bi

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: <20150728111249.GA19647@lst.de>
Date:	Tue, 28 Jul 2015 13:12:49 +0200
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@...cle.com>,
	linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, dm-devel@...hat.com,
	linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: add a bi_error field to struct bio

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 10:36:45AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Right, I don't think we need to do that though. If you look at the flags 
> usage, it's all over the map. Some use test/set_bit, some set it just by 
> OR'ing the mask. There's no reason we can't make this work without relying 
> on set/test_bit, and then shrink it to an unsigned int.

Yes, the current mess doesn't look kosher.  The bvec pool bits don't
really make it better.

But do we really need the cmpxchg hack? Seems like most flags aren't
exposed to concurrency at all, althugh this would need a careful audit.
--
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/