linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] block-bio_iov_iter

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: <aPY3YKzGbIKxFbl-@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2025 06:21:36 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	linux-block@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] block-bio_iov_iter_export

On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 08:56:59AM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> The implementation has morphed given multipage bvecs and iov_iters, but
> otherwise it looks structurally much the same as the version I
> originally introduced.

Not a pissing context, but I introduced it.  I attributed the git
authorship you because it fundamentally it based on your idea but with a
lot of tweaks.  I and many others do this to give proper credit.

> Please attribute correctly, and that would've included CCing me on the
> patch that dropped the EXPORT_SYMBOL().

No, we don't Cc the author of each line of code or even function.  The
relevant maintainer here is Jens.

> The way you're doing it with bdev_logical_block_size() is just wrong -
> even for single device filesystems! - because it's the filesystem
> blocksize that's relevant here and that isn't necessarily going to match
> (even if it matched when the filesystem was formatted, filesystems can
> be moved to different block devices).

I'm not sure what you are talking about, but the changes you seem to
be complaining about are making the alignment boundary a caller provided
argument.  Which seems to be what you're arguing for here?  Either way
this is the wrong venue.  If you want to change something sent patches
following the usual guidelines to the maintainer.