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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2020 09:53:27 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Denis Efremov <efremov@...ux.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Finn Thain <fthain@...egraphics.com.au>, Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@...il.com>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/18] block: open code kobj_map into in block/genhd.c On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 11:40:33AM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 08:32:42PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 29, 2020 at 08:22:36PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > After this, you want me to get rid of kobj_map, right? Or you don't > > > care as block doesn't use it anymore? :) > > > > I have a patch to kill it, but it causes odd regressions with the > > tpm driver according to the kernel test. As I have grand plans that > > build on the block Ń•ide of this series for 5.11, I plan to defer the > > chardev side and address it for 5.12. > > Ok, sounds good. > > Wow, I just looked at the tpm code, and it is, um, "interesting" in how > it thinks device lifespans work. Nothing like having 4 different > structures with different lifespans embedded within a single structure. > Good thing that no one can dynamically remove a TPM device during > "normal" operation. The regressions were during suspend then the tpm gets removed. In fact I'm pretty sure it is an existing problem that the change in the lookup just surfaced in a way that the test bot notices, but I didn't want to guard the block changes on it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists