linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] bsg : Add support for io vectors in bsg

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-Id: <1199998531.3141.96.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Thu, 10 Jan 2008 14:55:31 -0600
From:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To:	Pete Wyckoff <pw@....edu>
Cc:	FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>, tomof@....org,
	deepakrc@...il.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bsg : Add support for io vectors in bsg


On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 15:43 -0500, Pete Wyckoff wrote:
> fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp wrote on Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:11 +0900:
> > On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 17:09:18 -0500
> > Pete Wyckoff <pw@....edu> wrote:
> > > I took another look at the compat approach, to see if it is feasible
> > > to keep the compat handling somewhere else, without the use of #ifdef
> > > CONFIG_COMPAT and size-comparison code inside bsg.c.  I don't see how.
> > > The use of iovec is within a write operation on a char device.  It's
> > > not amenable to a compat_sys_ or a .compat_ioctl approach.
> > > 
> > > I'm partial to #1 because the use of architecture-independent fields
> > > matches the rest of struct sg_io_v4.  But if you don't want to have
> > > another iovec type in the kernel, could we do #2 but just return
> > > -EINVAL if the need for compat is detected?  I.e. change
> > > dout_iovec_count to dout_iovec_length and do the math?
> > 
> > If you are ok with removing the write/read interface and just have
> > ioctl, we could can handle comapt stuff like others do. But I think
> > that you (OSD people) really want to keep the write/read
> > interface. Sorry, I think that there is no workaround to support iovec
> > in bsg.
> 
> I don't care about read/write in particular.  But we do need some
> way to launch asynchronous SCSI commands, and currently read/write
> are the only way to do that in bsg.  The reason is to keep multiple
> spindles busy at the same time.

Won't multi-threading the ioctl calls achieve the same effect?  Or do
you trip over BKL there?

> How about these new ioctls instead of read/write:
> 
>     SG_IO_SUBMIT - start a new blk_execute_rq_nowait()
>     SG_IO_TEST   - complete and return a previous req
>     SG_IO_WAIT   - wait for a req to finish, interruptibly
> 
> Then old write users will instead do ioctl SUBMIT.  Read users will
> do TEST for non-blocking fd, or WAIT for blocking.  And SG_IO could
> be implemented as SUBMIT + WAIT.
> 
> Then we can do compat_ioctl and convert up iovecs out-of-line before
> calling the normal functions.
> 
> Let me know if you want a patch for this.

Really, the thought of re-inventing yet another async I/O interface
isn't very appealing.

James


--
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/