linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] workqueue.c: Change workqueue to accept variable length name

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]

Message-ID: <ZZ1KQN5SBvujlXF8@fedora>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2024 08:29:36 -0500
From: Audra Mitchell <audra@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Audra Mitchell <aubaker@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	raquini@...hat.com, jiangshanlai@...il.com,
	hirokazu.yamauchi.hk@...achi.com,
	Laurence Oberman <loberman@...hat.com>,
	Donald Douwsma <ddouwsma@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue.c: Change workqueue to accept variable length
 name

On Sat, Dec 23, 2023 at 02:53:52AM +0900, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 10:35:03AM -0500, Audra Mitchell wrote:
> > We have one concrete example from a Hitachi block device driver (notice the
> > 47a1/47a2 gets
> > cut off with the workqueue name):
> > 
> > Device                              Workqueue Name (24char zero terminated)
> > /dev/sd0279b080047a1   xfs-blockgc/sd0279b0800
> > /dev/sd0279b080047a2   xfs-blockgc/sd0279b0800
> 
> I see, so it's a combination of somewhat lengthy device names and then xfs
> adding a prefix to them. Neither is particularly long but the combination
> is.
> 
> > I can also imagine this issue being present with nvme devices, but the
> > request came from Hitachi.
> > I believe it would be up to the device driver to determine if the name can
> > be shortened and I've
> > included Hitachi requester on this email thread.
> > 
> > Alternatively, we could increase the size of the WQ_NAME_LEN, but it seems
> > highly likely we are
> > going to butt against the static size again in the future. We previously
> > had variable length names
> > and it seems (to me) to be the best long term path forward.
> 
> Can we just bump the length to 32 and trigger a warning if the requested
> name overruns? I want to provide some pressure to limit the length of the
> name so that it doesn't get too long over time. If folks bump into it and
> can't find a different way to deal with it, we can get bring back the
> subject.

Hey Tejun!

Hope you had a nice holiday. I just got back from a bit of a break and will
work on your suggestions this week. Thanks a bunch for your feedback!

- Audra