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  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]
Date:   Fri, 14 Feb 2020 14:07:48 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <>
To:     Jens Axboe <>
Cc:     io-uring <>,
        "" <>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] io_uring fixes for 5.6-rc2

On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 8:45 AM Jens Axboe <> wrote:
> Here's a set of fixes for io_uring that should go into this release.


          for_each_node(node) {
+                if (!node_online(node))
+                        continue;

that's just silly.

We have 'for_each_online_node()' for this.

There's something like four patterns of that pointless thing.

And in io_wq_create(), do you really want to allocate that wqe for
nodes that aren't online? Right now you _allocate_ the node data for
them (using a non-node-specific allocation), but then you won't
actually create the thread for them io_wq_manager().

Plus if the node online status changes, it looks like you'll mess up
_anyway_, in that  io_wq_manager() will first create the workers on
one set of nodes, but then perhaps set the state flags for a
completely different set of nodes if some onlining/offlining has

I've pulled this, but Jens, you need to be more careful. This all
looks like completely random state that nobody spent any time thinking

Seriously, this "io_uring FIXES ONLY" needs to be stricter than what
you seem to be doing here. This "fix" is opening up a lot of new
possibilities for inconsistencies in the data structures.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists