[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <92bffcc8-c25d-2297-80b3-24ba99075cd6@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 23:29:35 +0900
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
syzbot
<syzbot+4684a000d5abdade83fac55b1e7d1f935ef1936e@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
syzbot <syzbot+bf89c128e05dd6c62523@...kaller.appspotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] block/loop: Serialize ioctl operations.
Since syzbot restarted testing linux-next.git , it is a good chance
to test this patch for unexpected regressions (until you come up with
a good alternative).
On 2018/06/26 23:34, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> Did you get any idea?
>
> On 2018/06/05 3:13, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 6/4/18 5:19 AM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>>> This problem was already ignored for 8 months. Unless we boost priority,
>>> this problem will be ignored for years. Jens, can we test this patch?
>>
>> Sorry, it's just that I _really_ hate this patch. We're making up
>> a weird locking primitive that tracks the process, with a weird
>> unlock helper that only unlocks if it's the process that is
>> holding the mutex.
>>
>> I'll try and think about this a bit, it would be nice if we had
>> a better alternative than the above.
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists