linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] first round of SCSI updates for the 5.14+ merge window

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, 2 Sep 2021 15:38:01 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-scsi <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] first round of SCSI updates for the 5.14+ merge window

On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 9:50 AM James Bottomley
<James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com> wrote:
>
> We also picked up a non trivial conflict with the already upstream
> block tree in st.c

Hmm. Resolving that conflict, I just reacted to how the st.c code
passes in a NULL gendisk to scsi_ioctl() and then on to
blk_execute_rq().

Just checking that was fine, and I notice how *many* places do that.

Should the blk_execute_rq() function even take that "struct gendisk
*bd_disk" argument at all?

Maybe the right thing to do would be for the people who care to just
set rq->rq_disk before starting the request..

But I guess it's traditional, and nobody cares.

            Linus