linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9] bio: limit bio max 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: <c48d45cc-9c4f-0b6c-51d0-3044e7cdf7f5@kernel.dk>
Date:   Mon, 3 May 2021 08:59:41 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
        Changheun Lee <nanich.lee@...sung.com>, yi.zhang@...hat.com,
        ming.lei@...hat.com, bgoncalv@...hat.com, hch@....de,
        jaegeuk@...nel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patchwork-bot@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9] bio: limit bio max size

On 5/3/21 8:54 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 5/3/21 2:52 AM, Changheun Lee wrote:
>>  struct queue_limits {
>> +	unsigned int		bio_max_bytes;
>> +
>>  	enum blk_bounce		bounce;
>>  	unsigned long		seg_boundary_mask;
>>  	unsigned long		virt_boundary_mask;
> 
> On April 23 Damien Le Moal posted the following comment about the
> bio_max_bytes member: "Please move this below in the structure together
> with all other fields that are unsigned int too." Making that change
> sounds like a good idea to me.

Why? It's next to an enum, so the patch (as it stands) actually fills a
hole in the struct. Moving it would be a mistake and waste more space.

If anything, we should move the bounce member below virt_boundary_mask,
but since this one fills a hole, that's better left as a separate patch.

-- 
Jens Axboe