1. 18 7月, 2018 5 次提交
  2. 17 7月, 2018 2 次提交
    • J
      blk-iolatency: truncate our current time · 71e9690b
      Josef Bacik 提交于
      In our longer tests we noticed that some boxes would degrade to the
      point of uselessness.  This is because we truncate the current time when
      saving it in our bio, but I was using the raw current time to subtract
      from.  So once the box had been up a certain amount of time it would
      appear as if our IO's were taking several years to complete.  Fix this
      by truncating the current time so it matches the issue time.  Verified
      this worked by running with this patch for a week on our test tier.
      Signed-off-by: NJosef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
      Signed-off-by: NJens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
      71e9690b
    • J
      blk-iolatency: don't change the latency window · d607eefa
      Josef Bacik 提交于
      Early versions of these patches had us waiting for seconds at a time
      during submission, so we had to adjust the timing window we monitored
      for latency.  Now we don't do things like that so this is unnecessary
      code.
      Signed-off-by: NJosef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
      Signed-off-by: NJens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
      d607eefa
  3. 13 7月, 2018 12 次提交
  4. 12 7月, 2018 1 次提交
    • C
      bsg: remove read/write support · 28519c89
      Christoph Hellwig 提交于
      The code poses a security risk due to user memory access in ->release
      and had an API that can't be used reliably.  As far as we know it was
      never used for real, but if that turns out wrong we'll have to revert
      this commit and come up with a band aid.
      
      Jann Horn did look software archives for users of this interface,
      and the only users found were example code in sg3_utils, and optional
      support in an optional module of the tgt user space iscsi target,
      which looks like a proof of concept extension of the /dev/sg
      read/write support.
      
      Tony Battersby chimes in that the code is basically unsafe to use in
      general:
      
        The read/write interface on /dev/bsg is impossible to use safely
        because the list of completed commands is per-device (bd->done_list)
        rather than per-fd like it is with /dev/sg.  So if program A and
        program B are both using the write/read interface on the same bsg
        device, then their command responses will get mixed up, and program
        A will read() some command results from program B and vice versa.
        So no, I don't use read/write on /dev/bsg.  From a security standpoint,
        it should definitely be fixed or removed.
      Signed-off-by: NChristoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
      Signed-off-by: NJens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
      28519c89
  5. 11 7月, 2018 2 次提交
  6. 09 7月, 2018 18 次提交