linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] sd: remove redundant check for BLK_DEF_MAX

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: <BLUPR0301MB19724E7E002D1E47719D262CCE5A0@BLUPR0301MB1972.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date:	Sat, 4 Jun 2016 15:18:43 +0000
From:	Long Li <longli@...rosoft.com>
To:	Tom Yan <tom.ty89@...il.com>
CC:	"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
	"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] sd: remove redundant check for BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS

Sorry, "redundant check" is not the best word to describe this patch.

The result of this patch is that:
1. if opt_xfer_blocks has a valid value (returned form VPD BLOCK LIMITS), use it to set max_sectors
2. if opt_xfer_blocks doesn't have a valid value, leave max_sectors unchanged

The reason is that, max_sectors already has value at this point, the default value is SCSI_DEFAULT_MAX_SECTORS (include/scsi/scsi_host.h). The lower layer host driver can change this value in its template. I think the drivers care about this value have already set it. So it's better not to change it again. If they want max_sectors to be set by sd, they can use BLOCK LIMITS VPD to tell it to do so.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Yan [mailto:tom.ty89@...il.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 4, 2016 1:41 AM
> To: Long Li <longli@...rosoft.com>
> Cc: James E.J. Bottomley <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>; Martin K. Petersen
> <martin.petersen@...cle.com>; linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org; linux-
> kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] sd: remove redundant check for
> BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS
> 
> The main point there is not to check q->limits.max_sectors against
> BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS, but sdkp->opt_xfer_blocks against
> SD_DEF_XFER_BLOCKS et al.? `rw_max = BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS;` there is
> merely the fallback when sdkp->opt_xfer_blocks does not pass the
> conditions. With your patch `rw_max` can be indeterminate in those
> circumstances.
> 
> On 4 June 2016 at 11:57, Long Li <longli@...rosoft.com> wrote:
> > q->limits.max_sectors is already checked against BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS
> in __scsi_alloc_queue(), when it calls blk_queue_max_hw_sectors(). There
> is no need to check it again in sd.
> >
> > This change also allows a SCSI driver set an maximum sector size bigger
> than BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS, without returning values on optional VPD
> page 0xb0 "Block Limits".
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Long Li <longli@...rosoft.com>
> >
> > ---
> >  drivers/scsi/sd.c | 7 ++-----
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/sd.c b/drivers/scsi/sd.c index
> > 60bff78..d8c4047 100644
> > --- a/drivers/scsi/sd.c
> > +++ b/drivers/scsi/sd.c
> > @@ -2870,11 +2870,8 @@ static int sd_revalidate_disk(struct gendisk *disk)
> >             logical_to_bytes(sdp, sdkp->opt_xfer_blocks) >= PAGE_SIZE) {
> >                 q->limits.io_opt = logical_to_bytes(sdp, sdkp->opt_xfer_blocks);
> >                 rw_max = logical_to_sectors(sdp, sdkp->opt_xfer_blocks);
> > -       } else
> > -               rw_max = BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS;
> > -
> > -       /* Combine with controller limits */
> > -       q->limits.max_sectors = min(rw_max, queue_max_hw_sectors(q));
> > +               q->limits.max_sectors = min(rw_max,
> queue_max_hw_sectors(q));
> > +       }
> >
> >         set_capacity(disk, logical_to_sectors(sdp, sdkp->capacity));
> >         sd_config_write_same(sdkp);
> > --
> > 2.7.4
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi"
> > in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More
> majordomo
> > info at
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fvger.k
> > ernel.org%2fmajordomo-
> info.html&data=01%7c01%7clongli%40microsoft.com%
> >
> 7ce142128958ec47629dbe08d38c540306%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011d
> b47%
> > 7c1&sdata=EjjF86cvJqaxOAOWnN0%2f3Qln05qcquwe%2fKA7DgEjtcI%3d