linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] blk-mq: fix alignment mismatch.

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: <CA+SOCLL67K=reMX=pBQzRV6dYbbS6EPVeOxZ8Xdw90P91Zb8Zw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 8 Apr 2021 10:57:54 -0700
From:   Jian Cai <jiancai@...gle.com>
To:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc:     Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Christopher Di Bella <cjdb@...gle.com>,
        Manoj Gupta <manojgupta@...gle.com>,
        Luis Lozano <llozano@...gle.com>,
        clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blk-mq: fix alignment mismatch.

So this issue is blocking the LLVM upgrading on ChromeOS. Nathan, do
you mind sending out the smaller patch like Nick suggested just to see
what feedback we could get? I could send it for you if you are busy,
and please let me know what tags I should use in that case.

Thanks,
Jian

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 3:06 PM Nick Desaulniers
<ndesaulniers@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 2:58 PM Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 02:27:03PM -0700, Jian Cai wrote:
> > >
> > > I just realized you already proposed solutions for skipping the check
> > > in https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/20210310225240.4epj2mdmzt4vurr3@archlinux-ax161/#t.
> > > Do you have any plans to send them for review?
> >
> > I was hoping to gather some feedback on which option would be preferred
> > by Jens and the other ClangBuiltLinux folks before I sent them along. I
> > can send the first just to see what kind of feedback I can gather.
>
> Either approach is fine by me. The smaller might be easier to get
> accepted into stable. The larger approach will probably become more
> useful in the future (having the diag infra work properly with clang).
> I think the ball is kind of in Jens' court to decide.  Would doing
> both be appropriate, Jens? Have the smaller patch tagged for stable
> disabling it for the whole file, then another commit on top not tagged
> for stable that adds the diag infra, and a third on top replacing the
> file level warning disablement with local diags to isolate this down
> to one case?  It's a fair but small amount of churn IMO; but if Jens
> is not opposed it seems fine?
> --
> Thanks,
> ~Nick Desaulniers