linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] nvme-core: Fix subsystem instance mismatches

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: <20190904160235.GA20691@lst.de>
Date:   Wed, 4 Sep 2019 18:02:35 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.com>,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
        "Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
        Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
        Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nvme-core: Fix subsystem instance mismatches

On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 09:54:45AM -0600, Keith Busch wrote:
> Can we just ensure there is never a matching controller then? This
> patch will accomplish that and simpler than wrapping the instance in a
> refcount'ed object:
> 
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-nvme/2019-May/024142.html

I guess that is fine to.  Btw, what happened to the plan for udev
rules in that thread?