linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] iov: introduce ITER_BVEC_FLAG

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 13 Dec 2020 22:09:00 +0000
From:   Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] iov: introduce ITER_BVEC_FLAG_FIXED

On 09/12/2020 18:24, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 05:55:53PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 01:37:05PM +0000, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>> Yeah, I had troubles to put comments around, and it's still open.
>>>
>>> For current cases it can be bound to kiocb, e.g. "if an bvec iter passed
>>> "together" with kiocb then the vector should stay intact up to 
>>> ->ki_complete()". But that "together" is rather full of holes.
>>
>> What about: "For bvec based iters the bvec must not be freed until the
>> I/O has completed.  For asynchronous I/O that means it must be freed
>> no earlier than from ->ki_complete."
> 
> Perhaps for the second sentence "If the I/O is completed asynchronously,
> the bvec must not be freed before ->ki_complete() has been called"?

Sounds good, I'll use it. Thanks!

-- 
Pavel Begunkov