Re: [PATCH 1/2] block: fix leaks associated with discard requestpayload

From: Mike Snitzer
Date: Wed Jun 30 2010 - 08:19:05 EST

On Wed, Jun 30 2010 at 6:57am -0400,
Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 06/30/2010 01:41 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 01:25:01PM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> >> OK, Thanks, I see. Is it one of these operations, (like we have in OSD) where
> >> the CDB information spills into the payload? like the scatter-gather and extent
> >> lists and such.
> >
> > For UNMAP the payload is a list of block number / length pairs, while
> > the CDB itself doesn't contain any information like that. It's a rather
> > awkward command.
> >
> How big can that be? could we, maybe, use the sense_buffer, properly allocated
> already?
> >> Do we actually use a WRITE_SAME which is not zero? for what use?
> >
> > The kernel doesn't issue any WRITE SAME without the unmap bit set.
> So if the unmap bit is set then the page can just be zero, right?
> I still think a static zero-page is a worth while optimization. And
> block-drivers can take care with special needs with a private mem_pool
> or something. For the discard-type user and generic block layer the
> page is just an implementation specific residue, No?

Why should the block layer have any role in managing this page? Block
layer doesn't care about it, SCSI does.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at