linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] block: make sure big bio is splitted into at most 256 bvecs

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: <20160812163656.GA13370@kmo-pixel>
Date:	Fri, 12 Aug 2016 08:36:56 -0800
From:	Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	Eric Wheeler <bcache@...ts.ewheeler.net>,
	Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
	Sebastian Roesner <sroesner-kernelorg@...sner-online.de>,
	"4.3+" <stable@...r.kernel.org>, Shaohua Li <shli@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] block: make sure big bio is splitted into at most 256
 bvecs

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 07:02:53AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Please just fix bcache to not submit bios larger than BIO_MAX_PAGES for
> now, until we can support such callers in general and enable common
> used code to do so.

Christoph, what's wrong with Ming's patch? Leaving bcache aside, just
considering the block layer, do you think that patch is the wrong approach?