linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V6 15/30] block: introduce bio_clone_chunk

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: <20180614072828.GA26621@ming.t460p>
Date:   Thu, 14 Jun 2018 15:28:29 +0800
From:   Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>,
        Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        "Darrick J . Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        Coly Li <colyli@...e.de>, Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...il.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 15/30] block: introduce bio_clone_chunk_bioset()

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:39:20PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:01:38AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > Bounce limits the max pages as 256 will do bio splitting, so won't need
> > this change.
> 
> Behavior for the bounce code does not change with my patch.
> 
> The important points are:
> 
>  - the default interface (bio_clone_bioset in this case) should always
>    operate on full biosets
>  - if the bounce code needs bioves limited to single pages it should
>    be treated as the special case
>  - given that the bounce code is inside the block layer using the
>    __-prefixed internal interface is perfectly fine
>  - last but not least I think the parameter switching the behavior
>    needs a much more descriptive name as suggested in my patch

Fair enough, will switch to this way and avoid DM's change, even though
it is a dying interface.

Thanks,
Ming