From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jens Axboe Subject: Re: limits->max_sectors is getting set to 0, why/where? [was: Re: dm: kernel oops by divide error on v4.16+] Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 18:31:22 -0600 Message-ID: <19ce840a-2466-2af0-394c-eb19c4c10ee4@kernel.dk> References: <20180408040005.GA19128@ming.t460p> <20180409155120.GA10990@redhat.com> <20180409183836.GA11256@redhat.com> <70f1d349-f091-19a2-9ec6-978ac1e7dda0@kernel.dk> <78732cb7-3666-e1b0-e6d3-2a3409a0d4ca@kernel.dk> <20180409222716.GA6450@ming.t460p> <911ff78b-5b60-e05c-de88-8077d502290a@kernel.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Kees Cook , Mike Snitzer , Ming Lei , linux-block , Chris Mason , dm-devel@redhat.com List-Id: dm-devel.ids On 4/9/18 5:54 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 3:32 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >> >> The resulting min/max and friends would have been trivial to test, but >> clearly they weren't. > > Well, the min/max macros themselves actually were tested in user space by me. > > It was the interaction with the unrelated "min_not_zero()" that wasn't ;) > > It's easy in hind-sight to say "that's not at all unrelated", but > within the context of doing min/max, it was. I guess we should just be thankful that it didn't cause bigger issues than an oops. -- Jens Axboe