linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 04/10] block: revert back to synchronous request

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: <eba2a91b-62a6-839d-df54-2a1cf8262652@acm.org>
Date:   Mon, 20 Apr 2020 14:11:13 -0700
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc:     axboe@...nel.dk, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        jack@...e.cz, ming.lei@...hat.com, nstange@...e.de,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mhocko@...e.com, yukuai3@...wei.com,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Omar Sandoval <osandov@...com>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/10] block: revert back to synchronous request_queue
 removal

On 4/20/20 11:59 AM, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 03:23:31PM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On 4/19/20 12:45 PM, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
>>> + * Decrements the refcount to the request_queue kobject, when this reaches
>>> + * 0 we'll have blk_release_queue() called. You should avoid calling
>>> + * this function in atomic context but if you really have to ensure you
>>> + * first refcount the block device with bdgrab() / bdput() so that the
>>> + * last decrement happens in blk_cleanup_queue().
>>> + */
>>
>> Is calling bdgrab() and bdput() an option from a context in which it is not
>> guaranteed that the block device is open?
> 
> If the block device is not open, nope. For that blk_get_queue() can
> be used, and is used by the block layer. This begs the question:
> 
> Do we have *drivers* which requires access to the request_queue from
> atomic context when the block device is not open?

Instead of trying to answer that question, how about changing the 
references to bdgrab() and bdput() into references to blk_get_queue() 
and blk_put_queue()? I think if that change is made that we won't have 
to research what the answer to the bdgrab()/bdput() question is.

Thanks,

Bart.