linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/20] block: Allow bio_iov_iter_get_pages() with bio->bi

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:   Wed, 2 Aug 2023 12:44:37 -0400
From:   Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-bcachefs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/20] block: Allow bio_iov_iter_get_pages() with
 bio->bi_bdev unset

On Wed, Aug 02, 2023 at 04:47:18AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 03:04:50PM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > > Because blk-cgroup not only works at the lowest level in the stack,
> > > but also for stackable block devices.  It's not a design decision I
> > > particularly agree with, but it's been there forever.
> > 
> > You're setting the association only to the highest block device in the
> > stack - how on earth is it supposed to work with anything lower?
> 
> Hey, ask the cgroup folks as they come up with it.  I'm not going to
> defend the logic here.
> 
> > And looking at bio_associate_blkg(), this code looks completely broken.
> > It's checking bio->bi_blkg, but that's just been set to NULL in
> > bio_init().
> 
> It's checking bi_blkg because it can also be called from bio_set_dev.

So bio_set_dev() has subtly different behaviour than passing the block
device to bio_init()?

That's just broken.

> 
> > And this is your code, so I think you need to go over this again.
> 
> It's "my code" in the sene of that I did one big round of unwinding
> the even bigger mess that was there.  There is another few rounds needed
> for the code to vaguely make sense.

Well, I'll watch for those patches then...