linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] s390/dasd: remove ioctl_by

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: <20200506045258.GB9846@lst.de>
Date:   Wed, 6 May 2020 06:52:58 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Stefan Haberland <sth@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, axboe@...nel.dk,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, hoeppner@...ux.ibm.com,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
        gor@...ux.ibm.com, borntraeger@...ibm.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] s390/dasd: remove ioctl_by_bdev from DASD driver

On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 05:09:56PM +0200, Stefan Haberland wrote:
> OK, thanks for the hint.I did not have this in mind. And I still have
> to look up how this is working at all.
> But isn't this only a real issue for devices with more than 16 minors
> or partitions? So it should not be a problem for DASDs with our limit
> of 3 partitions and the fixed amount of minors, right?
> 
> Just tested with CONFIG_DEBUG_BLOCK_EXT_DEVT enabled and about 1000
> unlabeled devices. Did not see an issue.
> 
> While I see the SCSI devices with MAJOR 259 and quite a random MINOR
> all the DASD devices keep their MAJOR 94 and ascending MINOR.

Looks like it only changes the minors, and not the majors.  Still
checking for major and relying on a shared structure define in different
places just doesn't look maintainable.

> > And compared to all the complications I think the biodasdinfo method
> > is the least of all those evils.
> 
> Are you talking about your first patch suggestion?Then I disagree.
> I still do not like to force the driver to be built in if there is an
> alternative.

No, I mean the series that I actually sent out:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/21/66
https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/21/68
https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/4/21/69