linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] 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:	Wed, 15 Jun 2016 22:24:14 +0100
From:	Sitsofe Wheeler <sitsofe@...il.com>
To:	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Shaohua Li <shli@...com>,
	linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	axboe@...com, sitsofe@...oo.com, snitzer@...hat.com,
	Kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] block: correctly fallback for zeroout

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:14:50PM -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> >>>>> "Christoph" == Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> writes:
> 
> Christoph> And I'd much prefer to get this right now.  It's not like
> Christoph> this is recently introduced behavior.
> 
> Unfortunately there are quite a few callers of blkdev_issue_discard()
> these days. Some of them ignore the return value but not all of
> them. I'm concerned about causing all sorts of breakage if we suddenly
> start returning errors various places in the stable trees.

This is true. We have problematic behaviour in stable kernels today so
there needs to be a "least intrusive" workaround which changes the
behaviour as little as possible for those. I would say that means
maintaining the current -EOPNOTSUPP behaviour in those kernels
regardless of what goes into master.

-- 
Sitsofe | http://sucs.org/~sits/