linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH-next v3] lib: parser: optimize match

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

Message-ID: <3ed9db5a-f527-2c53-3926-74bd802a3086@kernel.dk>
Date:   Thu, 19 Jan 2023 20:50:31 -0700
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Li Lingfeng <lilingfeng3@...wei.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jack@...e.cz, bingjingc@...ology.com,
        ebiggers@...gle.com, james.smart@...adcom.com, houtao1@...wei.com,
        yi.zhang@...wei.com, yangerkun@...wei.com, yukuai3@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH-next v3] lib: parser: optimize match_NUMER apis to use
 local array

On 1/19/23 7:00?PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 10:13:04AM +0800, Li Lingfeng wrote:
>> Memory will be allocated to store substring_t in match_strdup(), which means
>> the caller of match_strdup() may need to be scheduled out to wait for reclaiming
>> memory.
>>
>> Using local array to store substring_t to remove the restriction.
>>
>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221104023938.2346986-5-yukuai1@huaweicloud.com/
>> Signed-off-by: Li Lingfeng <lilingfeng3@...wei.com>
> 
>  Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
> 
> This fixes a sleep-while-atomic splat in blk-iocost, so it'd be a good idea to add:
> 
>  Fixes: 2c0647988433 ("blk-iocost: don't release 'ioc->lock' while updating params").
> 
> The mm tree likely is the best fit but given the splat the block tree can
> work too. Andrew, Jens, what do you think?

I can take it through the block tree once folks are happy with it, as
the buggy patch came through there. Doesn't really matter to me,
however.

Why is it marked for-next though, seems like this is a regression in
this series?

-- 
Jens Axboe