lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 8/8] blk-map: reimplement blk_rq_map_user() using blk_rq_map_user_iov()
FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
>> * Because each call to bio_map/copy_user() is independent, segment
>> limit check was done only per each bio, so it was possible to create
>> requests which are larger than the driver and hardware limits, which
>> could lead to disastrous outcome.
>
> What do you mean? blk_rq_append_bio properly checks the segment and
> limit, I think.

Right, ll_back_merge_fn() does that. Sorry about that.

>> * Layers under FS may call blk_rq_map*() functions during request
>> processing. Under severe memory pressure and with enough bad luck,
>> this can lead to deadlock. As fs bvec pool is quite small, the
>> possibility isn't completely theoretical.
>>
>> This patch reimplement blk_rq_map_user() in terms of
>> blk_rq_map_user_iov() which doesn't support multi-bio mappping and
>> drop multi bio handling from blk_rq_unmap_user(). Note that with the
>> previous patch to remove bio max size limit and to add null mapping
>> support to blk_rq_map_user_iov(), this change doesn't remove any
>> functionality.
>
> I don't think that we can drop multi bio handling from
> blk_rq_unmap_user(). It may make some users angry. Mike Christie added
> it because it was necessary.

The only user of blk_rq_append_bio() is scsi_lib.c. Is Mike
Christie's code chaining bio's directly into rq?

Thanks.

--
tejun


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-04-01 14:53    [W:0.057 / U:0.320 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site