linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next 0/4] blk-cgroup: synchronize del

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 21 Dec 2022 02:37:54 -0800
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
Cc:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, hch@...radead.org, josef@...icpanda.com,
        axboe@...nel.dk, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        yi.zhang@...wei.com, "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 0/4] blk-cgroup: synchronize del_gendisk() with
 configuring cgroup policy

On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 05:19:12PM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
> If we are using a mutex to protect rq_qos ops, it seems the right thing
> to do do also using the mutex to protect blkcg_policy ops, and this
> problem can be fixed because mutex can be held to alloc memroy with
> GFP_KERNEL. What do you think?

Getting rid of the atomic allocations would be awesome.

FYI, I'm also in favor of everything that moves things out of
queue_lock into more dedicated locks.  queue_lock is such an undocument
mess of untargeted things that don't realted to each other right now
that splitting and removing it is becoming more and more important.