> Il giorno 17 apr 2018, alle ore 23:42, Kees Cook ha
> scritto:
>
> Some elevators may not correctly check rq->rq_flags & RQF_ELVPRIV, and
> may attempt to read rq->elv fields. When requests got reused, this
> caused BFQ to think it already had a bfqq (rq->elv.priv[1]) allocated.
Hi Kees,
wh
On 4/17/18 4:57 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 2:45 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 4/17/18 3:42 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> Some elevators may not correctly check rq->rq_flags & RQF_ELVPRIV, and
>>> may attempt to read rq->elv fields. When requests got reused, this
>>> caused BFQ to thin
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 2:45 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 4/17/18 3:42 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> Some elevators may not correctly check rq->rq_flags & RQF_ELVPRIV, and
>> may attempt to read rq->elv fields. When requests got reused, this
>> caused BFQ to think it already had a bfqq (rq->elv.priv[1]) a
On 4/17/18 3:42 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> Some elevators may not correctly check rq->rq_flags & RQF_ELVPRIV, and
> may attempt to read rq->elv fields. When requests got reused, this
> caused BFQ to think it already had a bfqq (rq->elv.priv[1]) allocated.
> This could lead to odd behaviors like having
Some elevators may not correctly check rq->rq_flags & RQF_ELVPRIV, and
may attempt to read rq->elv fields. When requests got reused, this
caused BFQ to think it already had a bfqq (rq->elv.priv[1]) allocated.
This could lead to odd behaviors like having the sense buffer address
slowly start increme
5 matches
Mail list logo