linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/6] block: Create scsi

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: <9A0BC289-4203-4C77-A012-AAB07F42061F@kernel.dk>
Date:   Tue, 22 May 2018 17:42:06 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "Manoj N. Kumar" <manoj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Matthew R. Ochs" <mrochs@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Uma Krishnan <ukrishn@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] block: Create scsi_sense.h for SCSI and ATAPI

On May 22, 2018, at 5:31 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 12:16 PM, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
>>> On 5/22/18 1:13 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>>> On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 01:09:41PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> I think Martin and Christoph are objecting to moving the code to
>>>> block/scsi_ioctl.h. I don't care too much about where the code is, but
>>>> think it would be nice to have the definitions in a separate header. But
>>>> if they prefer just pulling in all of SCSI for it, well then I guess
>>>> it's pointless to move the header bits. Seems very heavy handed to me,
>>>> though.
>>> 
>>> It might be heavy handed for the 3 remaining users of drivers/ide,
>> 
>> Brutal :-)
> 
> Heh. I noticed a similar sense buffer use in drivers/cdrom/cdrom.c
> too. Is this okay under the same considerations?

This is going from somewhat crazy to pretty nuts, imho. I guess in practical terms it doesn’t matter that much, since most folks would be using sr. I still think a split would be vastly superior. Just keep the scsi code in drivers/scsi/ and make it independently selectable.

Jens