linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND 4/5] blk-iolatency: fix incorrect lock order for rq_qos

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: <3622d80b-2946-4f0d-bb64-eb4eadf78dbf@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2025 15:42:17 +0530
From: Nilay Shroff <nilay@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Yu Kuai <yukuai@...as.com>, axboe@...nel.dk, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tj@...nel.org, ming.lei@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 4/5] blk-iolatency: fix incorrect lock order for
 rq_qos_mutex and freeze queue



On 11/16/25 9:40 AM, Yu Kuai wrote:
> Currently blk-iolatency will hold rq_qos_mutex first and then call
> rq_qos_add() to freeze queue.
> 
> Fix this problem by converting to use blkg_conf_open_bdev_frozen()
> from iolatency_set_limit(), and convert to use rq_qos_add_freezed().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai@...as.com>

Looks good to me:
Reviewed-by: Nilay Shroff <nilay@...ux.ibm.com>