[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161224094905.GA16518@lst.de>
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2016 10:49:05 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Chris Leech <cleech@...hat.com>,
Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Lee Duncan <lduncan@...e.com>, open-iscsi@...glegroups.com,
Linux SCSI List <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [4.10, panic, regression] iscsi: null pointer deref at
iscsi_tcp_segment_done+0x20d/0x2e0
On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 07:45:45PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> It's not that it's technically hard to fix up, it's more that it's a
> pain in the ass to have to do it. For instance, for blk_execute_rq(), we
> either should enforce that the caller allocates it dynamically and then
> free it, or we need nasty hack where the caller needs to know he has to
> free it. Pretty obvious what I would prefer there.
>
> And yes, there would be a good chunk of other places where this would
> nede to be fixed up...
My planned rework for the BLOCK_PC code (split all fields for them out
of struct request and move them into a separate, driver-allocate structure)
would fix this up as a side-effect. I really wanted to get it into 4.10,
but I didn't manage to fix it up. I'll try to get it into 4.11 early.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists