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: <20210320160430-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date:   Sat, 20 Mar 2021 16:04:44 -0400
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Connor Kuehl <ckuehl@...hat.com>
Cc:     Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, 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
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] virtiofs: split requests that exceed virtqueue size

On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 10:52:14AM -0500, Connor Kuehl wrote:
> 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?

Yes pls post separately. Thanks!

> Thanks again,
> 
> Connor