linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/7] xfs: validate bdev support for DAX inode flag

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: <20170926171638.GA20159@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Sep 2017 11:16:38 -0600
From:   Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] xfs: validate bdev support for DAX inode flag

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 08:36:50AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 05:13:59PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> > Currently only the blocksize is checked, but we should really be calling
> > bdev_dax_supported() which also tests to make sure we can get a
> > struct dax_device and that the dax_direct_access() path is working.
> > 
> > This is the same check that we do for the "-o dax" mount option in
> > xfs_fs_fill_super().
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
> 
> I think we just want to pick this up ASAP.  And between my vague
> memoried and that reviewed-by tag it already was part of a different
> series, wasn't it?

Yep, the first 2 patches were part of this series:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/9/7/552

which you reviewed.  I included them in this series because the later patches
needed to build on them.  It looks like they are now in Darrick's
xfs-4.14-fixes branch, but haven't yet made it upstream.