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  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 20:02:26 -0700
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
        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 02/19/2017 07:59 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 02/19/2017 07:12 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> The above set from Jan and Dan fixed one set of issues around this, and
> the reproducer test case was happy as well. But we've recently found
> that there are still corner cases that aren't happy, Omar reported that
> separately on Friday. So there will be a followup set for that,
> hopefully intersecting with the issue that Bart reported.

Forgot to mention, that these cases exist in 4.0 and 4.6 as well, so
neither are a new problem with this series. The fixes from Jan and
Dan didn't close all of them.

-- 
Jens Axboe

Powered by blists - more mailing lists