linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] blk-core: use pr_warn_ratelimited() in bio_check

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: <20231108071655.GA4875@lst.de>
Date:   Wed, 8 Nov 2023 08:16:55 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To:     Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
Cc:     hch@....de, axboe@...nel.dk, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yukuai3@...wei.com,
        yi.zhang@...wei.com, yangerkun@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blk-core: use pr_warn_ratelimited() in bio_check_ro()

On Tue, Nov 07, 2023 at 07:12:47PM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
> From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>
> 
> If one of the underlying disks of raid or dm is set to read-only, then
> each io will generate new log, which will cause message storm. This
> environment is indeed problematic, however we can't make sure our
> naive custormer won't do this, hence use pr_warn_ratelimited() to
> prevent message storm in this case.

Reducing the log spam sounds good, and I guess the single warning
would be even better.

That being said, why/how is the underlying device set to read-only?
If there is a good reason we should probably add a holder op to tell
the user about it so that it stop sending writes.