linux-kernel - Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

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:	Thu, 17 Mar 2016 09:42:07 -0700
From:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Xiong Zhou <jencce.kernel@...il.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Andreas Herrmann <aherrmann@...e.com>
Subject: Re: 4.5.0+ panic when setup loop device

On 03/17/2016 05:01 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:39:46PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> But we have to clarify and document whether holes in cpu_possible_mask are not
>>> allowed at all or if code like the above is simply broken.
>>
>> So the general rule is that cpumasks can have holes, and exempting one
>> just muddles the water.
>>
>> Therefore I'd call the code just plain broken.
>
> Agreed.
>
> That macro is not really helping the readability of the code at all. So a
> simple for_each_possible_cpu() loop would have avoided that wreckage.

Does the attached work? The rest of blk-mq should deal with holes just 
fine, we found some of those issues on sparc. Not sure why this one 
slipped through the cracks.

-- 
Jens Axboe


View attachment "blk-mq-discontig.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (1497 bytes)