linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] Block pull request for- 4.11-rc1

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:   Sun, 19 Feb 2017 18:12:20 -0800
From:   James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@...disk.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     "linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Block pull request for- 4.11-rc1

On Sun, 2017-02-19 at 18:15 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 02/19/2017 06:09 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On 02/19/2017 04:11 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > - Removal of the BLOCK_PC support in struct request, and
> > > refactoring of
> > >   carrying SCSI payloads in the block layer. This cleans up the
> > > code
> > >   nicely, and enables us to kill the SCSI specific parts of
> > > struct
> > >   request, shrinking it down nicely. From Christoph mainly, with
> > > help
> > >   from Hannes.
> > 
> > Hello Jens, Christoph and Mike,
> > 
> > Is anyone working on a fix for the regression introduced by the 
> > BLOCK_PC removal changes (general protection fault) that I had 
> > reported three weeks ago? See also
> > https://www.spinics.net/lists/raid/msg55494.html
> 
> I don't think that's a regression in this series, it just triggers 
> more easily with this series. The BLOCK_PC removal fixes aren't 
> touching device life times at all.
> 
> That said, we will look into this again, of course. Christoph, any
> idea?

We could do with tracing the bdi removal failure issue fingered both by
the block xfstests and Omar.  It's something to do with this set of
commits

> - Fixes for duplicate bdi registrations and bdi/queue life time
>   problems from Jan and Dan.

But no-one has actually root caused it yet.

James