linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] last batch of add

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: <YXLwF1jit131Nb5u@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date:   Fri, 22 Oct 2021 10:08:39 -0700
From:   Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc:     schmitzmic@...il.com, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        axboe@...nel.dk, hch@....de, efremov@...ux.com, song@...nel.org,
        jejb@...ux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, hare@...e.de, jack@...e.cz,
        ming.lei@...hat.com, tj@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] last batch of add_disk() error handling
 conversions

On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 10:06:07AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2021/10/22 1:38, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > I rebased Tetsuo Handa's patch onto the latest linux-next as this
> > series depends on it, and so I am sending it part of this series as
> > without it, this won't apply. Tetsuo, does the rebase of your patch
> > look OK?
> 
> OK, though I wanted my fix to be sent to upstream and stable before this series.

Sure, absolutely, your patch is certainly separate and is needed as a
fix downstream to stable it would seem.

> > If it is not too much trouble, I'd like to ask for testing for the
> > ataflop changes from Michael Schmitz, if possible, that is he'd just
> > have to merge Tetsuo's rebased patch and the 2nd patch in this series.
> > This is all rebased on linux-next tag 20211020.
> 
> Yes, please.
> 
> After this series, I guess we can remove "bool registered[NUM_DISK_MINORS];" like below
> due to (unit[drive].disk[type] != NULL) == (unit[drive].registered[type] == true).

Sounds good.

> Regarding this series, setting unit[drive].registered[type] = true in ataflop_probe() is
> pointless because atari_floppy_cleanup() checks unit[i].disk[type] != NULL for calling
> del_gendisk().

I see, will fix.

> And we need to fix __register_blkdev() in driver/block/floppy.c because
> floppy_probe_lock is pointless.

Sure, I take it you're going to work on a patch?

So much excitement with the floppy world, who would have thought? :)

  Luis