linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/6] block: ensure we don't truncate top bits of the request command flags

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <56F4BC28.1090901@fb.com>
Date:	Thu, 24 Mar 2016 22:18:48 -0600
From:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>
To:	Mike Christie <mchristi@...hat.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
CC:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-block@...r.kernel.org>, <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] block: ensure we don't truncate top bits of the
 request command flags

On 03/24/2016 08:08 PM, Mike Christie wrote:
> On 03/22/2016 02:01 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 03/22/2016 12:59 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:55:15AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> Some of the flags that we want to use from the make_request_fn path
>>>> are now larger than 32-bit, so change the functions involved to
>>>> accept an u64 instead of an unsigned int.
>>>
>>> When did we start doing that?  We really should merge Mike's split
>>> of the operation style flags into the cmd_type before making things
>>> even worse in the flags area.
>>
>> Just now, and I ran into it last week as well, for a test patch on cfq
>> that passed in higher flags for get_request -> may_queue() as well. We
>> can do Mike's split first, I think it's a good cleanup. As a standalone
>> series, I needed it though.
>>
>
> Hey, did you want any changes on that patchset? I was going to repost it
> with the kbuild fix against linux-next, but I can make any changes you
> wanted first.

I don't believe I've ever been CC'ed on the posting, or it even being 
posted on the block list? If so, I don't see it... I did become aware of 
it since Christoph CC'ed me in. In general, I think it looks good, at 
least the end results. It's a bit murky in the middle, and the commit 
messages need some help. So go over everything, sanitize it, and repost 
it. I don't like the current pure flag based scheme we have, it's a mess 
of ops and modifiers. So splitting that up is definitely a good thing.

-- 
Jens Axboe