| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20080916.141248.74754047.k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:12:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@...jp.nec.com>
To: jens.axboe@...cle.com
Cc: bharrosh@...asas.com, agk@...hat.com,
James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
dm-devel@...hat.com, j-nomura@...jp.nec.com, k-ueda@...jp.nec.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/13] block: add request submission interface
Hi Jens,
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:02:20 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16 2008, Kiyoshi Ueda wrote:
> > Hi Boaz, Jens,
> >
> > On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:10:58 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> > > Kiyoshi Ueda wrote:
> > > > This patch adds blk_submit_request(), a generic request submission
> > > > interface for request stacking drivers.
> > > > Request-based dm will use it to submit their clones to underlying
> > > > devices.
> > > >
> > > > blk_rq_check_limits() is also added because it is possible that
> > > > the lower queue has stronger limitations than the upper queue
> > > > if multiple drivers are stacking at request-level.
> > > > Not only for blk_submit_request()'s internal use, the function
> > > > will be used by request-based dm when the queue limitation is
> > > > modified (e.g. by replacing dm's table).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@...jp.nec.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jun'ichi Nomura <j-nomura@...jp.nec.com>
> > > > Cc: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > block/blk-core.c | 81 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > include/linux/blkdev.h | 2 +
> > > > 2 files changed, 83 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > Index: 2.6.27-rc6/block/blk-core.c
> > > > ===================================================================
> > > > --- 2.6.27-rc6.orig/block/blk-core.c
> > > > +++ 2.6.27-rc6/block/blk-core.c
> > > > @@ -1517,6 +1517,87 @@ void submit_bio(int rw, struct bio *bio)
> > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(submit_bio);
> > > >
> > > > /**
> > > > + * blk_rq_check_limits - Helper function to check a request for the queue limit
> > > > + * @q: the queue
> > > > + * @rq: the request being checked
> > > > + *
> > > > + * Description:
> > > > + * @rq may have been made based on weaker limitations of upper-level queues
> > > > + * in request stacking drivers, and it may violate the limitation of @q.
> > > > + * Since the block layer and the underlying device driver trust @rq
> > > > + * after it is inserted to @q, it should be checked against @q before
> > > > + * the insertion using this generic function.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * This function should also be useful for request stacking drivers
> > > > + * in some cases below, so export this fuction.
> > > > + * Request stacking drivers like request-based dm may change the queue
> > > > + * limits while requests are in the queue (e.g. dm's table swapping).
> > > > + * Such request stacking drivers should check those requests agaist
> > > > + * the new queue limits again when they dispatch those requests,
> > > > + * although such checkings are also done against the old queue limits
> > > > + * when submitting requests.
> > > > + */
> > > > +int blk_rq_check_limits(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq)
> > > > +{
> > > > + if (rq->nr_sectors > q->max_sectors ||
> > > > + rq->data_len > q->max_hw_sectors << 9) {
> > > > + printk(KERN_ERR "%s: over max size limit.\n", __func__);
> > > > + return -EIO;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * queue's settings related to segment counting like q->bounce_pfn
> > > > + * may differ from that of other stacking queues.
> > > > + * Recalculate it to check the request correctly on this queue's
> > > > + * limitation.
> > > > + */
> > > > + blk_recalc_rq_segments(rq);
> > > > + if (rq->nr_phys_segments > q->max_phys_segments ||
> > > > + rq->nr_hw_segments > q->max_hw_segments) {
> > > > + printk(KERN_ERR "%s: over max segments limit.\n", __func__);
> > > > + return -EIO;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +}
> > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(blk_rq_check_limits);
> > > > +
> > > > +/**
> > > > + * blk_submit_request - Helper for stacking drivers to submit a request
> > > > + * @q: the queue to submit the request
> > > > + * @rq: the request being queued
> > > > + */
> > > > +int blk_submit_request(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq)
> > > > +{
> > > > + unsigned long flags;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (blk_rq_check_limits(q, rq))
> > > > + return -EIO;
> > > > +
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_FAIL_MAKE_REQUEST
> > > > + if (rq->rq_disk && rq->rq_disk->flags & GENHD_FL_FAIL &&
> > > > + should_fail(&fail_make_request, blk_rq_bytes(rq)))
> > > > + return -EIO;
> > > > +#endif
> > > > +
> > > > + spin_lock_irqsave(q->queue_lock, flags);
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Submitting request must be dequeued before calling this function
> > > > + * because it will be linked to another request_queue
> > > > + */
> > > > + BUG_ON(blk_queued_rq(rq));
> > > > +
> > > > + drive_stat_acct(rq, 1);
> > > > + __elv_add_request(q, rq, ELEVATOR_INSERT_BACK, 0);
> > > > +
> > > > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(q->queue_lock, flags);
> > > > +
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +}
> > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(blk_submit_request);
> > > > +
> > >
> > > This looks awfully similar to blk_execute_rq_nowait With an Added
> > > blk_rq_check_limits, minus the __generic_unplug_device() and
> > > q->request_fn(q) calls. Perhaps the common code could be re factored
> > > out?
> >
> > They might look simlar but don't have much in common actually.
> > I could refactor them like the attached patch, but I'm not sure
> > this is a correct way and this is cleaner than the current code.
> > (e.g. blk_execute_rq_nowait() can't be called with irqs-disabled,
> > but blk_insert_request() and my blk_submit_request() can be called
> > with irqs-disabled.)
> >
> > So I'd leave them as it is unless you or others strongly prefer
> > the attached patch...
> > Anyway, I would like to leave the refactoring as a separate patch,
> > since it's not so straightforward.
>
> If it wasn't for the _irq vs _irqsave, I would apply it. But I agree,
> your current approach is fine.
OK, I'll rebase my patches for for-2.6.28 of your block git and
repost the block bits. Maybe I need a time to confirm whether
the diffrences between 2.6.27-rc6 and the block git affect my patches.
(Hopefully, I'd like to repost this week.)
Thanks,
Kiyoshi Ueda
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists