From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: [PATCH] sg, bsg: mitigate read/write abuse, block uaccess in release Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 17:16:58 +0100 Message-ID: <20180618161657.GP30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <20180615152335.208202-1-jannh@google.com> <20180615164009.GD30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <90063ef3-68fa-e983-9b47-838e6076b0f4@interlog.com> <813e817b-bb2f-4a47-6225-9e39f19be278@kernel.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <813e817b-bb2f-4a47-6225-9e39f19be278@kernel.dk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jens Axboe Cc: dgilbert@interlog.com, Jann Horn , FUJITA Tomonori , "James E.J. Bottomley" , "Martin K. Petersen" , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, security@kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 09:37:01AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > > The folks responsible are no longer active in kernel development *** > > but as far as I know the async write(command), read(response) were > > added to bsg over 10 years ago as proof-of-concept and never properly > > worked in this async mode. The biggest design problem with it that I'm > > It was born with that mode, but I don't think anyone ever really used it. > So it might feasible to simply yank it. That said, just doing a prune > mode at ->release() time doesn't seem like such a hard task. "prune mode" being...?