From: Martin Wilck
To avoid race conditions with pending RCU callbacks on exit, it's
necessary to call rcu_barrier() in cleanup_rcu() (see
https://lists.lttng.org/pipermail/lttng-dev/2021-May/029958.html and
follow-ups).
rcu_barrier() is only available in User-space RCU v0.8 and newer.
Fix it
On Wed, 2021-05-12 at 14:53 -0500, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 11:38:08AM +, Martin Wilck wrote:
> > On Tue, 2021-05-11 at 18:22 -0500, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
> > > When ev_remove_path() returns success, callers assume that the
> > > path
> > > (and
> > > possibly
On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 08:36:49PM +, Martin Wilck wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-05-12 at 14:53 -0500, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
> > On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 11:38:08AM +, Martin Wilck wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2021-05-11 at 18:22 -0500, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
> > So AFAICS, the only way for a path
On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 12:36:42PM +, Martin Wilck wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-05-11 at 18:22 -0500, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
> > configure() can retry multiple times, each time reallocing a maps and
> > paths vector, and leaking the previous ones. Fix this by always
> > freeing
> > the vectors
On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 11:38:08AM +, Martin Wilck wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-05-11 at 18:22 -0500, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
> > When ev_remove_path() returns success, callers assume that the path
> > (and
> > possibly the map) has been removed. When ev_remove_path() returns
> > failure, callers
On Tue, 2021-05-11 at 18:22 -0500, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
> If a new block was allocated, but couldn't be filled, getblock will
> discard it. When it does so, it needs to free the block to avoid
> leaking
> memory. Found by coverity.
>
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Marzinski
Reviewed-by: Martin
On Tue, 2021-05-11 at 18:22 -0500, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
> configure() can retry multiple times, each time reallocing a maps and
> paths vector, and leaking the previous ones. Fix this by always
> freeing
> the vectors before configure() exits. Found by coverity.
>
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin
On Tue, 2021-05-11 at 18:22 -0500, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
> When ev_remove_path() returns success, callers assume that the path
> (and
> possibly the map) has been removed. When ev_remove_path() returns
> failure, callers assume that the path has not been removed. However,
> the
> path could
On 5/11/21 2:15 AM, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote:
Hi,
* Background :-
---
Copy offload is a feature that allows file-systems or storage devices
to be instructed to copy files/logical blocks without requiring
involvement of the
On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 09:11:01AM +, Martin Wilck wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-05-11 at 18:22 -0500, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
> > In ev_remove_path(), if update_mpp_paths() fails, we delete the
> > entire
> > map. However, since update_mpp_paths() happens before we call
> > set_path_removed(),
On Tue, 2021-05-11 at 18:22 -0500, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
> remove_map_and_stop_waiter() already calls orphan_paths() so
> flush_map()
> doesn't need to call orphan_paths() before calling
> remove_map_and_stop_waiter().
>
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Marzinski
Reviewed-by: Martin Wilck
> ---
>
On Tue, 2021-05-11 at 18:22 -0500, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
> In ev_remove_path(), if update_mpp_paths() fails, we delete the
> entire
> map. However, since update_mpp_paths() happens before we call
> set_path_removed(), pp->initialized isn't set to INIT_REMOVED, so
> remove_map_and_stop_waiter()
On 12/05/2021 14:28, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> Revert the commit 7a5b96b4784454ba258e83dc7469ddbacd3aaac3 ("dm integrity:
> use discard support when recalculating").
>
> There's a bug that when we write some data beyond the current recalculate
> boundary, the checksum will be rewritten with the
Revert the commit 7a5b96b4784454ba258e83dc7469ddbacd3aaac3 ("dm integrity:
use discard support when recalculating").
There's a bug that when we write some data beyond the current recalculate
boundary, the checksum will be rewritten with the discard filler later.
And the data will no longer have
I'd love to participate in this discussion.
You mention the 2 different models (single command vs. multi-command). Just as
a reminder, there are specific reasons for those 2 different models.
Some applications know both the source and the destination, so can use the
single command model (the
On Tue, 2021-05-11 at 00:15 +, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote:
> Hi,
>
> * Background :-
> -
> --
>
> Copy offload is a feature that allows file-systems or storage devices
> to be instructed to copy files/logical blocks without
On 11/05/2021 02:15, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote:
> Hi,
>
> * Background :-
> ---
>
> Copy offload is a feature that allows file-systems or storage devices
> to be instructed to copy files/logical blocks without requiring
>
17 matches
Mail list logo
