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]

Date:   Tue, 22 May 2018 16:49:58 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
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 Tue, May 22, 2018 at 4:42 PM, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
> 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.

I had originally tied it to BLK_SCSI_REQUEST. Logically speaking,
sense buffers are part of the request, and the CONFIG work is already
done. This is roughly what I tried to do before, since scsi_ioctl.c is
the only code pulled in for CONFIG_BLK_SCSI_REQUEST:

$ git grep BLK_SCSI_REQUEST | grep Makefile
block/Makefile:obj-$(CONFIG_BLK_SCSI_REQUEST)   += scsi_ioctl.o

Should I move to code to a new drivers/scsi/scsi_sense.c and add it to
drivers/scsi/Makefile as:

obj-$(CONFIG_BLK_SCSI_REQUEST)    += scsi_sense.o

Every place I want to use the code is already covered by
CONFIG_BLK_SCSI_REQUEST, so it seems like I just need to know where to
put the .c file. :P

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security