linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the btrfs-kdave tree

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: <20161118174756.GA12522@suse.cz>
Date:   Fri, 18 Nov 2016 18:47:56 +0100
From:   David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the block tree with the btrfs-kdave
 tree

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 02:23:01PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 07:49:29PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > doesn't look correct, if bio_readpage_error() is called from the 
> > ->bi_end_io() handler. bi_size is generally zeroed at that time.
> 
> At least some of these bios are magic btrfs-internal ones that never
> reach the block layer.  But I don't think all are, and both the new
> code and one of the old cases are broken.  David, can you drop
> this one patch for now, and I'll restart the discussion on the
> failfast behavior on the btrfs list?

Ok, updated in today's for-next snapshot.