linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7] block layer patches for bcachefs

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: <8e874109-db4a-82e3-4020-0596eeabbadf@kernel.dk>
Date:   Tue, 30 May 2023 08:22:50 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] block layer patches for bcachefs

On 5/26/23 2:44?PM, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 08:35:23AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 5/25/23 3:48?PM, Kent Overstreet wrote:
>>> Jens, here's the full series of block layer patches needed for bcachefs:
>>>
>>> Some of these (added exports, zero_fill_bio_iter?) can probably go with
>>> the bcachefs pull and I'm just including here for completeness. The main
>>> ones are the bio_iter patches, and the __invalidate_super() patch.
>>>
>>> The bio_iter series has a new documentation patch.
>>>
>>> I would still like the __invalidate_super() patch to get some review
>>> (from VFS people? unclear who owns this).
>>
>> I wanted to check the code generation for patches 4 and 5, but the
>> series doesn't seem to apply to current -git nor my for-6.5/block.
>> There's no base commit in this cover letter either, so what is this
>> against?
>>
>> Please send one that applies to for-6.5/block so it's a bit easier
>> to take a closer look at this.
> 
> Here you go:
> git pull https://evilpiepirate.org/git/bcachefs.git block-for-bcachefs

Thanks

The re-exporting of helpers is somewhat odd - why is bcachefs special
here and needs these, while others do not?

But the main issue for me are the iterator changes, which mostly just
seems like unnecessary churn. What's the justification for these? The
commit messages don;t really have any. Doesn't seem like much of a
simplification, and in fact it's more code than before and obviously
more stack usage as well.

-- 
Jens Axboe