linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v10 03/12] block: Inline encryption support for blk-mq

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 27 Apr 2020 22:21:37 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Satya Tangirala <satyat@...gle.com>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        Barani Muthukumaran <bmuthuku@....qualcomm.com>,
        Kuohong Wang <kuohong.wang@...iatek.com>,
        Kim Boojin <boojin.kim@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 03/12] block: Inline encryption support for blk-mq

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 02:54:00AM +0000, Satya Tangirala wrote:
> It's modified by additions in the next patch in the series and I
> thought I should introduce the function with the final type from the
> get go - is that alright?

It is probably ok, let me review the next patch in more detail.

> > >  	__blk_queue_split(q, &bio, &nr_segs);
> > > @@ -2011,6 +2015,15 @@ static blk_qc_t blk_mq_make_request(struct request_queue *q, struct bio *bio)
> > >  
> > >  	blk_mq_bio_to_request(rq, bio, nr_segs);
> > >  
> > > +	ret = blk_crypto_init_request(rq);
> > > +	if (ret != BLK_STS_OK) {
> > > +		bio->bi_status = ret;
> > > +		bio_endio(bio);
> > > +		blk_mq_free_request(rq);
> > > +		return BLK_QC_T_NONE;
> > > +	}
> > 
> > Didn't Eric have a comment last round that we shoul dtry this before
> > attaching the bio to simplify error handling?
> > 
> In the previous round, I believe Eric commented that I should call
> blk_crypto_init_request after bio_to_request so that we can do away
> with some of the arguments to blk_crypto_init_request and also a
> boilerplate function used only while calling blk_crypto_init_request.
> I realize you wrote "And we can fail just the request on an error, so
> yes this doesn't seem too bad." in response to this particular
> comment of Eric's, and it seems I might not actually have understood
> what that meant - did you have something in mind different from what I'm
> doing here?

No, this looks ok, sorry for the noise.