linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] nvme: fix nvme_remove going to uninterruptible sleep for ever

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]

Message-ID: <20170601124631.GA28652@lst.de>
Date:   Thu, 1 Jun 2017 14:46:32 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Rakesh Pandit <rakesh@...era.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] nvme: fix nvme_remove going to uninterruptible
        sleep for ever

On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 03:36:50PM +0300, Rakesh Pandit wrote:
> Also Sagi pointed out that user space set_features ioctl if fired up
> in a window after nvme_removal it can also result in this issue seems
> to be correct.  I would prefer to keep this as it is and introduce
> similar check higher up in nvme_ioctrl instead so that we don't send
> sync commands if queues are killed already.
> 
> Would you prefer a patch ? Thanks,

If we want to kill everyone we probably should do it in ->queue_rq.
Or is the block layer blocking you somewhere else?