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 11:42:58 -0700
From:   Jian Cai <jiancai@...gle.com>
To:     Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>
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.

Sounds good! Thanks for the help and the link.

On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 11:12 AM Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> 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