linux-kernel - Re: New warning in nvme_setup

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 17 Jul 2021 14:19:59 +0200
From:   Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>
To:     Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
        linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
        David Jeffery <djeffery@...hat.com>,
        Laurence Oberman <loberman@...hat.com>,
        Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: New warning in nvme_setup_discard

On sobota 17. července 2021 14:11:05 CEST Oleksandr Natalenko wrote:
> On sobota 17. července 2021 11:35:32 CEST Ming Lei wrote:
> > Maybe you need to check if the build is OK, I can't reproduce it in my
> > VM, and BFQ is still builtin:
> > 
> > [root@...st-01 ~]# uname -a
> > Linux ktest-01 5.14.0-rc1+ #52 SMP Fri Jul 16 18:56:36 CST 2021 x86_64
> > x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux [root@...st-01 ~]# cat
> > /sys/block/nvme0n1/queue/scheduler
> > [none] mq-deadline kyber bfq
> 
> I don't think this is an issue with the build… BTW, with `initcall_debug`:
> 
> ```
> [    0.902555] calling  bfq_init+0x0/0x8b @ 1
> [    0.903448] initcall bfq_init+0x0/0x8b returned -28 after 507 usecs
> ```
> 
> -ENOSPC? Why? Also re-tested with the latest git tip, same result :(.

OK, one extra pr_info, and I see this:

```
[    0.871180] blkcg_policy_register: BLKCG_MAX_POLS too small
[    0.871612] blkcg_policy_register: -28
```

What does it mean please :)? The value seems to be hard-coded:

```
include/linux/blkdev.h
60:#define BLKCG_MAX_POLS               5
```

-- 
Oleksandr Natalenko (post-factum)