linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] RFC: loop: Avoid calling blk_mq_freeze

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: <CACVXFVP0JrpUgterqHs5bvCQn7L9a-XrjDCD3BmQOLe+rgC1KQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 16 Aug 2019 00:34:44 +0800
From:   Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
To:     Martijn Coenen <maco@...roid.com>
Cc:     Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, kernel-team@...roid.com,
        Narayan Kamath <narayan@...gle.com>,
        Dario Freni <dariofreni@...gle.com>,
        Nikita Ioffe <ioffe@...gle.com>,
        Jiyong Park <jiyong@...gle.com>,
        Martijn Coenen <maco@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RFC: loop: Avoid calling blk_mq_freeze_queue() when possible.

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 11:38 PM Martijn Coenen <maco@...roid.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 12:47 PM Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com> wrote:
> > blk_queue_init_done() is only called in blk_queue_init_done() for
> > this purpose, so this approach should be fine, IMO.
>
> I was thinking somebody might add more stuff to "init" in the future,
> and then that new stuff would now no longer be executed for the loop
> driver. The name "init" is pretty generic...but if that's not a
> concern I'm happy with your proposal as well. There's one more
> "freeze" I'd like to get rid of - we also call LOOP_SET_STATUS(64),
> and there's a freeze in there because lo->transfer is modified. That
> makes sense, but I was hoping we can make that freeze conditional on
> whether lo->transfer would actually change value; if it stays the
> same, I think freezing is not necessary.

The queue freeze in SET_STATUS may not be avoided, not only
.transfer, there are also .lo_offset, .size, filename, dio and others.

If nothing will change, why does the userspace bother to send
SET_STATUS?


Thanks,
Ming Lei