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]

Date:   Thu, 8 Apr 2021 11:12:10 -0700
From:   Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
To:     Jian Cai <jiancai@...gle.com>
Cc:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        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.

Hi Jian,

On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 10:57:54AM -0700, Jian Cai wrote:
> 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

I will go ahead and send the smaller patch at some point today.

For what it's worth, Nick brought up https://reviews.llvm.org/D100037,
which may be relevant here.

Cheers,
Nathan

> 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