linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] virtiofs: split requests that exceed virtqueue size

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: <00c5dce8-fc2d-6e68-e3bc-a958ca5d2342@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 Mar 2021 10:52:14 -0500
From:   Connor Kuehl <ckuehl@...hat.com>
To:     Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc:     virtio-fs@...hat.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, stefanha@...hat.com,
        vgoyal@...hat.com, jasowang@...hat.com, mst@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] virtiofs: split requests that exceed virtqueue size

On 3/18/21 10:17 AM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> I removed the conditional compilation and renamed the limit.  Also made
> virtio_fs_get_tree() bail out if it hit the WARN_ON().  Updated patch below.

Thanks, Miklos. I think it looks better with those changes.

> The virtio_ring patch in this series should probably go through the respective
> subsystem tree.

Makes sense. I've CC'd everyone that ./scripts/get_maintainers.pl 
suggested for that patch on this entire series as well. Should I resend 
patch #1 through just that subsystem to avoid confusion or wait to see 
if it gets picked out of this series?

Thanks again,

Connor