linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH BUGFIX 0/6] block, bfq: series of fixes, and not only, for some recently reported issues

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <D495E7DF-DF7D-4762-BE9F-913DF631D254@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 3 Feb 2020 09:50:42 +0100
From:   Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        noreply-spamdigest via bfq-iosched 
        <bfq-iosched@...glegroups.com>,
        Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>,
        patdung100@...il.com, cevich@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH BUGFIX 0/6] block, bfq: series of fixes, and not only, for
 some recently reported issues



> Il giorno 1 feb 2020, alle ore 05:48, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> ha scritto:
> 
> On 1/31/20 2:24 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:
>> Hi Jens,
>> these patches are mostly fixes for the issues reported in [1, 2]. All
>> patches have been publicly tested in the dev version of BFQ.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Paolo
>> 
>> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767539
>> [2] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=205447
>> 
>> Paolo Valente (6):
>>  block, bfq: do not plug I/O for bfq_queues with no proc refs
>>  block, bfq: do not insert oom queue into position tree
>>  block, bfq: get extra ref to prevent a queue from being freed during a
>>    group move
>>  block, bfq: extend incomplete name of field on_st
>>  block, bfq: get a ref to a group when adding it to a service tree
>>  block, bfq: clarify the goal of bfq_split_bfqq()
>> 
>> block/bfq-cgroup.c  | 12 ++++++++++--
>> block/bfq-iosched.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
>> block/bfq-iosched.h |  3 ++-
>> block/bfq-wf2q.c    | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>> 4 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> I wish some of these had been sent sooner, they really should have been
> sent in a few weeks ago. Just took a quick look at the bug reports, and
> at least one of the bugs mentions looks like it had a fix available 2
> months ago.

The first fix(es) didn't work with the issue reported in [2], which
was in turn very similar to that in [1].  Since I didn't know why, I
couldn't be sure that the first fix was correct and did not introduce
other issues.

> Have they been in -next?

Nope. I proposed the full series in this thread, the day after the
full fix was confirmed to work.  I didn't propose any partial series
patch before, for the above reason.

> They are all marked as bug fixes,
> should they have stable tags?

I guess they should, as fixes to bugs that may cause crashes.  If
there are other rules for these tags, I'm sorry but I'm not aware of
them.

> All of them, some of them?

The only two non-fix patches are non-functional, trivial code
improvements made along the way.

Submitting a V2.

Thanks,
Paolo

> 
> -- 
> Jens Axboe