linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] pmem: only set QUEUE_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: <20180626191235.GB18273@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Jun 2018 13:12:35 -0600
From:   Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:     Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
        Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
        Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@....com>,
        device-mapper development <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
        linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] pmem: only set QUEUE_FLAG_DAX for fsdax mode

On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 12:07:40PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:58 AM, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 26 2018 at  2:52pm -0400,
> > Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Ross Zwisler
> >> <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> >> > QUEUE_FLAG_DAX is an indication that a given block device supports
> >> > filesystem DAX and should not be set for PMEM namespaces which are in "raw"
> >> > or "sector" modes.  These namespaces lack struct page and are prevented
> >> > from participating in filesystem DAX.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>
> >> > Suggested-by: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
> >> > Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> >>
> >> Why is this cc: stable? What is the user visible impact of this change
> >> especially given the requirement to validate QUEUE_FLAG_DAX with
> >> bdev_dax_supported()? Patch looks good, but it's just a cosmetic fixup
> >> afaics.
> >
> > This isn't cosmetic when you consider that stacking up a DM device is
> > looking at this flag to determine whether a table does or does _not_
> > support DAX.
> >
> > So this patch, in conjunction with the other changes in the series, is
> > certainly something I'd consider appropriate for stable.
> 
> I think this classifies as something that never worked correctly and
> is not a regression. It does not identify which commit it is repairing
> or the user visible failure mode.

Ah, do I need a Fixes: tag for patch 2, then?  That one *does* need to go to
stable, I think.