linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] nfs/blocklayout: Don't attempt unregister for invalid block device

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: <93DD6022-E5FC-44CB-9DAF-67DEFF58CB1C@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2024 08:46:58 -0500
From: Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@...hat.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Trond Myklebust <trondmy@...nel.org>, Anna Schumaker <anna@...nel.org>,
 Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] nfs/blocklayout: Don't attempt unregister for invalid
 block device

On 19 Nov 2024, at 7:42, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 05:40:40PM -0500, Benjamin Coddington wrote:
>> Since commit d869da91cccb, an unmount of a pNFS SCSI layout-enabled NFS
>
> Please also spell out the commit subject in the commit log body, similar
> to to the Fixes tag.

Will do.

>> index 6252f4447945..7ae79814f4ff 100644
>> --- a/fs/nfs/blocklayout/dev.c
>> +++ b/fs/nfs/blocklayout/dev.c
>> @@ -16,13 +16,16 @@
>>
>>  static void bl_unregister_scsi(struct pnfs_block_dev *dev)
>>  {
>> -	struct block_device *bdev = file_bdev(dev->bdev_file);
>> -	const struct pr_ops *ops = bdev->bd_disk->fops->pr_ops;
>> +	struct block_device *bdev;
>> +	const struct pr_ops *ops;
>>  	int status;
>>
>>  	if (!test_and_clear_bit(PNFS_BDEV_REGISTERED, &dev->flags))
>>  		return;
>>
>> +	bdev = file_bdev(dev->bdev_file);
>> +	ops = bdev->bd_disk->fops->pr_ops;
>> +
>
> Hmm.  Just moving the test_and_clear_bit to the caller would
> feel cleaner than this to me.

We can do this too - I'll send another version.  I didn't go this way
because I felt the bit test and clear was an important part of the function
that could be lost if we ever had another caller.

> But either way the change looks good:
>
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>

Thanks for the review.

Ben