From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-yw1-f176.google.com (mail-yw1-f176.google.com [209.85.128.176]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9C1123909F for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2026 04:04:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.128.176 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786421059; cv=none; b=FEbuz1YaB91YbnfqMrNBKssbSyzWk+Zro22j4hUE6+3AZi5jaGERZwl0looK6zS2t+9hDHbQ8BR2DxzrYh6TA5PmFMeMP3BNQJWw55wqrzZp4HfyQRBpM6o+09xAjWyYGoELtak01wrbDPPZNQrYRSBNyRr+QOwuD5IF+5EXGIo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786421059; c=relaxed/simple; bh=lyeK9aBbtnh8MHhK0QlEi5A9QY6Umptk7fn2lOsOJDE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=EEdCGldK+k5gLHySd+3cIJoMOQwBv6QS5SohC04xU4ppq5Zb2Y230rkZZ3PiBYQEjovtu5CEwq/IaG9QBx6qB3X6enAebban2iGRnIx5S6x4PNab147N7PzVq1Mj9w80HwnPQcg8widjLJheqwZSc0jHysUTlUetl1xNRIQUPiU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=bCb5Xtfk; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.128.176 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="bCb5Xtfk" Received: by mail-yw1-f176.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-8111c0c7561so31129397b3.3 for ; Mon, 10 Aug 2026 21:04:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20251104; t=1786421057; x=1787025857; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:date:subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to:content-type; bh=y3vyjW0DTZeOqW+IpPjwitbNL4KqPKpkFiayP6aBYFc=; b=bCb5Xtfk17WNgU6jTO4ceeZG7c8LcW6MRktSc8kGuXHbJ8+UhamgfQqSiMRr41yhr8 bsn6gGInXe+FKbtRqUpIaBCC7vm3opu0pK0IPPQIvlYhaCjFJckgMPV/4mLfV7gVgaHj OqUDPX+Kpa5vjPVn3GmsFqZSxpyniwy2FUZYFFrdaOYK1xXmQDcQnzOpvpBgD15Ja0fj XlirUspDH3RLDOquhi1xATRIV8ICbZOKkyXwB/qLZmfA/xrTZEVm2sNHgrpJE+pHWH1d 7205fGmJvIIHXpmyPpktZYMW3RbB4GVhCTjD8HPJUmwidhU1SrQgNbeTcDtKy+F+0NZl x0kg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1786421057; x=1787025857; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:date:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from :to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to:content-type; bh=y3vyjW0DTZeOqW+IpPjwitbNL4KqPKpkFiayP6aBYFc=; b=BfNUNTjmsYxRn/SKJNpApW6HU1/JLjs3NEyaqL4Hx8xYlgnCqTZyQCwnNZDFJBEIrn rLsUU4OqQLo1rOQec1Jx9j8JZyeY16hrXas/dErFm/qWc2cHqTwzjdVpOCOerOkAboJc xL/8ZRx7QujE+bd3u2gSqL8aTKSnA7S2kJpyhwk3MR6vWV0kDrcRT24EzxE1tI6p+TQE Gvdx4y2ty/kG9BqMx84D5SFzGOqb9kMQD1j4a2QY2WmLizmCZgFFwL7sWCwAsnHLaQ5Z NVRZDmxshpyoPFkXhOGSRo8px5gwGlG376XCWDgXDD2ZQQgSg781gp+dnWXzmDpseh7f MGBQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AHgh+Rodr2Gw44+7KCdu1GMAa685zgWDQ1dx1IPHDRVwCBJidgnU4LRxL/yxLZwyW+KB1DV8VXSoY8pR4Dq2WS0=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yw17+bjps4e+l5F32xo4SENtjD+YybvWzgERd/grnGVxXDhmT3h dwnC9Z8rLhmN8TRarJqnAx+LzrjbgUdVyqrghZOCLdttaD9hH35CQ08N X-Gm-Gg: AR+sD11BfoCtZwNbXTjcVoCqsTTG3KzfbZfPq5h08Z+x14DOHzTlvQ8EIhMNR7v3t9/ qke8ugC7jGuMkgWsC8+d+/HfIjRSqJWpajwQ7JtaGsYcRBVGv6gTbGQc5UsccyfprSa2ePTA5a4 XnP+Orh7XU/Bj0ceXUOGhRc4ixW/ZtNX+uMiiydTk+oEueZBgHyH8oGWxnXMqxKPmW/Mevq51LX mEJTRyGQH5YadUu+Pqk+BqyUVheWW3uRLayKH2vhAUiyRPT7Ob3aZN/Vdetuty0tDlcHsQqPKWr 9EvCKZcGyocGRSK13Gwqg6+c89DPTJmFV0h8Ox1WiY1LMb3dFkZkpzRIefXKSIaM+A60drNvG98 GKhacHVM1+AGkdBdPZEWCT4S0f1T0fluFMvMPFx0V1Arms+xvp8wVigjUQUsRXo4w4DK+jlre48 ElgoFz0WAeGectgfWV//tavVHcSZct/hhbN/pt7BhbSIpWlb+ddP84dkgQe+AvOjKSYuut2zquZ mcUNae342UyedFU3Q== X-Received: by 2002:a05:690c:4b10:b0:81f:e85b:f9da with SMTP id 00721157ae682-82f2f103751mr571547b3.33.1786421056694; Mon, 10 Aug 2026 21:04:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from syssplab.cs.fiu.edu (nat1.cs.fiu.edu. [131.94.134.89]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 00721157ae682-82ec39021f5sm2842817b3.32.2026.08.10.21.04.15 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 10 Aug 2026 21:04:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Chao Shi To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Jens Axboe , "Martin K. Petersen" , Keith Busch , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Samin Y. Chowdhury" , Sungwoo Kim , Dave Tian , Weidong Zhu , Ruimin Sun Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] blk-integrity: fix slab-out-of-bounds in t10_pi_verify on namespace revalidation Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2026 00:04:09 -0400 Message-ID: <20260811040415.1968239-1-coshi036@gmail.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.43.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20260531-blk-integrity-fix-v1-1-cc7084f42cf1@outlook.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Mon, Jun 01, 2026 at 09:40:29AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > I don't think changing fundamental device properies such as the LBA > or integrity tag size under a live device is a good model. So instead > of coming up with bandaids like this, we should probably just fail > any such revalidation when there are openers instead of trying to deal > with the fallout. Agreed, and sorry for the long silence. Samin and I are in the same group and I am picking this up from him. We are dropping the blk-integrity patch rather than respinning it. Before writing anything on the nvme side I would like to get the shape right, because "fail the revalidation" can mean a few things and one of them looks worse than the splat. If a namespace really was reformatted out of band and we refuse to adopt the new geometry, the host keeps issuing I/O with the old LBA format and metadata size to a device that has already changed underneath it. That is silent corruption rather than a KASAN report. So I assume refusing the update has to be paired with taking the namespace out of service. Did you have in mind (a) refuse the update and mark the namespace dead, like a surprise removal, (b) refuse only while the disk has openers and redo the revalidation on last close, or (c) something else? Chao