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:   Thu, 19 Dec 2019 14:07:16 +0300
From:   Kirill Tkhai <>
To:     "Martin K. Petersen" <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] block: Add support for REQ_OP_ASSIGN_RANGE

Hi, Martin!

On 19.12.2019 06:03, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
> Hi Kirill!
>> The patch adds a new blkdev_issue_assign_range() primitive, which is
>> rather similar to existing blkdev_issue_{*} api.  Also, a new queue
>> limit.max_assign_range_sectors is added.
> I am not so keen on the assign_range name. What's wrong with "allocate"?

REQ_OP_ALLOCATE_RANGE seemed for me as looking very long for the reviewers.
And I found that there is no an abbreviation of operations name in enum req_opf,
so REQ_OP_ALLOC_RANGE won't look good. Thus, I found a replacement.

But in case of REQ_OP_ALLOCATE_RANGE length is OK for people, there is no
a problem to choose it.

> But why introduce a completely new operation? Isn't this essentially a
> write zeroes with BLKDEV_ZERO_NOUNMAP flag set?
> If the zeroing aspect is perceived to be a problem we could add a
> terminology used in SCSI).

Hm. BLKDEV_ZERO_NOUNMAP is used in __blkdev_issue_write_zeroes() only.
So, do I understand right that we should the below two?:

1)Introduce a new flag BLKDEV_ZERO_ALLOCATE for blkdev_issue_write_zeroes().
2)Introduce a new flag REQ_NOZERO in enum req_opf.

Won't this confuse a reader that we have blkdev_issue_write_zeroes(),
which does not write zeroes sometimes? Maybe we should rename
blkdev_issue_write_zeroes() in some more generic name?


Powered by blists - more mailing lists