linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] 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]

Date:   Fri, 1 May 2020 17:22:12 -0700
From:   Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>, 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
Cc:     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 v3 1/6] block: revert back to synchronous request_queue
 removal

On 2020-04-29 00:46, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> The last reference for the request_queue must not be called from atomic
> conext. *When* the last reference to the request_queue reaches 0 varies,
  ^^^^^^
  context?
> and so let's take the opportunity to document when that is expected to
> happen and also document the context of the related calls as best as possible
> so we can avoid future issues, and with the hopes that the synchronous
> request_queue removal sticks.
> 
> We revert back to synchronous request_queue removal because asynchronous
> removal creates a regression with expected userspace interaction with
> several drivers. An example is when removing the loopback driver, one
> uses ioctls from userspace to do so, but upon return and if successful,
> one expects the device to be removed. Likewise if one races to add another
> device the new one may not be added as it is still being removed. This was
> expected behaviour before and it now fails as the device is still present
           ^^^^^^^^^
           behavior?

> +/**
> + * blk_put_queue - decrement the request_queue refcount
> + * @q: the request_queue structure to decrement the refcount for
> + *
> + * Decrements the refcount to the request_queue kobject. When this reaches 0
                              ^^
                              of?

> +/**
> + * blk_get_queue - increment the request_queue refcount
> + * @q: the request_queue structure to incremenet the refcount for
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^
                                         increment?
> + *
> + * Increment the refcount to the request_queue kobject.
                             ^^
                             of?

>  /**
> - * __blk_release_queue - release a request queue
> - * @work: pointer to the release_work member of the request queue to be released
> + * blk_release_queue - releases all allocated resources of the request_queue
> + * @kobj: pointer to a kobject, who's container is a request_queue
                                   ^^^^^
                                   whose?

> +/**
> + * disk_release - releases all allocated resources of the gendisk
> + * @dev: the device representing this disk
> + *
> + * This function releases all allocated resources of the gendisk.
> + *
> + * The struct gendisk refcounted is incremeneted with get_gendisk() or
                         ^^^^^^^^^^    ^^^^^^^^^^^^
                         refcount?     incremented?

Please fix the spelling errors. Otherwise this patch looks good to me.

Thanks,

Bart.