linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] blk: missing add of padded bytes to io completion byte count

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:	Sat, 8 Mar 2008 00:07:24 +0900
From:	FUJITA Tomonori <tomof@....org>
To:	htejun@...il.com
Cc:	jens.axboe@...cle.com, fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp,
	James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com, bharrosh@...asas.com,
	efault@....de, tomof@....org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, jgarzik@...ox.com, bzolnier@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blk: missing add of padded bytes to io completion byte
   count

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 09:07:23 +0900
Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com> wrote:

> Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>> If we want the use paradigm shared between block and driver, then I
> >>> think the best approach is to keep all the bios the same (so not adjust
> >>> for padding), but do adjust in the blk_rq_map_sg().  That way we have
> >>> the padding and draining unwind information by comparing with the bio.
> >> Adjusting only sg in blk_rq_map_sg (like drain) looks much
> >> better. This works with libata for me.
> > 
> > Looks like a much better solution to me. Anyone have any valid
> > objections against moving the padding to the sg map time?
> 
> Not necessarily objections but some concerns.
> 
> * As completion is done in bio terms, it makes completion from LLDs a
> bit cumbersome, but this is unavoidable if we break sum(bio) == sum(sg).

What do you mean? How does sub(bio) affect LLDs?


> * I've been wondering why we are not using sg chain / table or whatever
> directly in bios and maybe rq_map_sg can go away in future.

You mean that LLDs use bios directly? For me, sg and bio have very
different objectives and it's a clean layer separation.


> How about separating out the padding / draining adjustment into a
> separate interface?  Say, blk_rq_apply_extra() and blk_rq_undo_extra()
> and make it the responsibility of the LLD which requested
> padding/draining to apply and undo the adjustments?  It can undo the
> adjustments when it returns the the request to its upper layer.  If rq
> completion is handled by upper layer, it will do the right thing.  If rq
> completion is handled by LLD, it can see the bio it wants to see.

If possible, I'd like to avoid creating APIs for them. I think that
the current approach is much better than such APIs.
--
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/