linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Block layer: separate out queue-oriented ioctls

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:47:51 -0500
From:	Douglas Gilbert <dougg@...que.net>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
CC:	Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling@...us.fraunhofer.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
	James.Bottomley@...eleye.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Block layer: separate out queue-oriented ioctls

Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
> 
>> Alan,
>> The SG_GET_RESERVED_SIZE ioctl is also defined in
>> the block layer, see block/scsi_ioctl.c .
> 
> Ah, I didn't know that.  (Or more likely, I used to know and have since 
> forgotten.)  Thanks for pointing it out.
> 
>> I suspect it is just a kludge to fool cdrecord that it
>> is talking to a sg device. [One of many kludges in the
>> block SG_IO ioctl implementation to that end.]
>> So perhaps the block layer versions of SG_SET_RESERVED_SIZE
>> and SG_GET_RESERVED_SIZE need to be similarly capped.
> 
> Yes.  In fact one of them already is, but the other should be too.
> 
>> Actually I think that I would default SG_GET_RESERVED_SIZE to
>> request_queue->max_sectors * 512 in the block layer
>> implementation (as there is no "reserve buffer" associated
>> with a block device).
> 
> Okay.
> 
> Come to think of it, the reserved_size value used when a new sg device is
> created should also be capped at max_sectors * 512.  Agreed?  I can't see
> any reason for ever having a larger buffer -- it would be impossible to
> make use of the extra space.

Alan,
That depends whether or not max_sectors can be changed
(via sysfs) subsequent to a sg device being created.
And I think it can.

# ls -l /sys/block/sdc/queue/
total 0
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root    0 Feb 19 18:29 iosched
-r--r--r-- 1 root root 4096 Feb 19 23:41 max_hw_sectors_kb
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4096 Feb 19 23:41 max_sectors_kb
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4096 Feb 19 23:41 nr_requests
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4096 Feb 19 23:41 read_ahead_kb
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4096 Feb 19 23:41 scheduler


# cat max_hw_sectors_kb > max_sectors_kb

... is the real maximum if the LLD that set max_hw_sectors_kb
is to be believed (actually it is often a finger in
the wind).

Doug Gilbert


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/