linux-kernel - Re: Boot regression (was "Re: [PATCH] genhd: Do not hold event lock when scheduling workqueue elements")

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:   Tue, 14 Feb 2017 15:51:01 +0100
From:   "hch@....de" <hch@....de>
To:     Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>
Cc:     "hch@....de" <hch@....de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@...disk.com>,
        "hare@...e.com" <hare@...e.com>, "hare@...e.de" <hare@...e.de>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        "jth@...nel.org" <jth@...nel.org>,
        Nick Meier <Nick.Meier@...rosoft.com>,
        "Alex Ng (LIS)" <alexng@...rosoft.com>,
        Long Li <longli@...rosoft.com>,
        "Adrian Suhov (Cloudbase Solutions SRL)" <v-adsuho@...rosoft.com>,
        "Chris Valean (Cloudbase Solutions SRL)" <v-chvale@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: Boot regression (was "Re: [PATCH] genhd: Do not hold event
        lock when scheduling workqueue elements")

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 02:46:41PM +0000, Dexuan Cui wrote:
> > From: hch@....de [mailto:hch@....de]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 22:29
> > To: Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>
> > Subject: Re: Boot regression (was "Re: [PATCH] genhd: Do not hold event lock
> > when scheduling workqueue elements")
> > 
> > Ok, thanks for testing.  Can you try the patch below?  It fixes a
> > clear problem which was partially papered over before the commit
> > you bisected to, although it can't explain why blk-mq still works.
> 
> Still bad luck. :-(
> 
> BTW, I'm using the first "bad" commit (scsi: allocate scsi_cmnd structures as
> part of struct request) + the 2 patches you provided today.
> 
> I suppose I don't need to test the 2 patches on the latest linux-next repo.

I'd love a test on that repo actually.  We had a few other for sense
handling since then I think.