linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] block: correctly fallback for zeroout

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:	Sat, 28 May 2016 23:47:28 -0700
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Shaohua Li <shli@...com>
Cc:	linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	sitsofe@...oo.com, snitzer@...hat.com, axboe@...com,
	martin.petersen@...cle.com, Kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: correctly fallback for zeroout

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 11:08:14AM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
> -int blkdev_issue_discard(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t sector,
> -		sector_t nr_sects, gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned long flags)
> +static int do_blkdev_issue_discard(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t sector,

We've split blkdev_issue_discard into __blkdev_issue_discard and a small
wrapper around in for 4.7, so this will need a bit of an update.

As part of that I also removed the strange EOPNOTSUPP ignore, but Mike
reverted it just because it changed something in the dm testsuite.

I still believe we should never ignore it in this helper, and only
do so in callers that believe it's the right thing.