linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] block: fix q->max_segment_size checking in blk_recalc_rq

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]

Message-Id: <20080717221908D.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date:	Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:18:44 +0900
From:	FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
To:	mpatocka@...hat.com
Cc:	fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	davem@...emloft.net, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: fix q->max_segment_size checking in
 blk_recalc_rq_segments about VMERGE

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 07:50:24 -0400 (EDT)
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com> wrote:

> > > > Please give me an example how the boundary restriction of a device can
> > > > break the VMERGE accounting and an IOMMU if you aren't still sure.
> > > 
> > > You have dma_get_seg_boundary and dma_get_max_seg_size. On sparc64, adding 
> > > one of these broken VMERGE accounting (the VMERGE didn't happen past 64-kb 
> > > boundary and bio layer thought that VMERGE would be possible).
> > 
> > If the device has 64KB boundary restriction, the device also has
> > max_seg_size restriction of 64KB or under. So the vmerge acounting
> > works (though we need to fix it to handle max_seg_size, as discussed).
> > 
> > > And if you fix this case, someone will break it again, sooner or later, by 
> > > adding new restriction.
> > 
> > All restrictions that IOMMUs need to know are dma_get_seg_boundary and
> > dma_get_max_seg_size.
> > 
> > What is your new restriction?
> 
> We don't know what happens in the future.

It's very unlikely to add new restrictions.


> And that is the problem that we 
> don't know --- but we have two pieces of code (blk-merge and iommu) that 
> try to calculate the same number (number of hw segments) and if they get 
> different result, it will crash. If the calculations were done at one 
> place, there would be no problem with that.

I don't think that your argument, 'the problem that we don't know', is
true.

With the vmerge accounting, we calculate at two places. So if we add
a new restriction, we need to handle it at two places. It's a logical
result.

Of course, it's easier to calculate at one place rather than two
places. But 'we don't know what restriction we will need' isn't a
problem.


BTW, as I've already said, I'm not against removing the vmerge
accounting from the block layer.
--
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/