linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scsi: isci: initialize shost fully before calling scsi_add

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:   Mon, 14 Jan 2019 12:10:23 +0000
From:   John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To:     "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
CC:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
        <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Intel SCU Linux support <intel-linux-scu@...el.com>,
        Artur Paszkiewicz <artur.paszkiewicz@...el.com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
        chenxiang <chenxiang66@...ilicon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: isci: initialize shost fully before calling
 scsi_add_host()

On 12/01/2019 02:34, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>
> John,
>
>> So how about just drop these APIs and let the user set the shost
>> protection parameters directly, like other shost parameters,
>
> The protection interfaces here obviously predate the block layer
> allocation changes that made this particular issue pop up.
>
>> which should make it a bit clearer when these should be set,
>> i.e. before scsi_add_host()?
>
> In general, I am not so keen on the somewhat messy intersection between
> the host parameters and the host template. The static host templates
> made lots of sense in the days of Seagate ST01 and fixed hardware
> capabilities.  But reality is that most modern controllers have to query
> firmware interfaces to figure out what their actual capabilities are.

Hi Martin,

I am not suggested setting the parameters via scsi host template, but 
rather dynamically (as we currently do) but just drop the set helper 
functions, like:

     shost->max_channel = 1;
     shost->max_cmd_len = 16;

     ...

     if (hisi_hba->prot_mask) {
         dev_info(dev, "Registering for DIF/DIX prot_mask=0x%x\n",
              prot_mask);
-        scsi_host_set_prot(hisi_hba->shost, prot_mask);
+        shost->prot_capabilities = prot_mask;
     }

     rc = scsi_add_host(shost, dev);
     if (rc)
         goto err_out_ha;

     rc = sas_register_ha(sha);
     if (rc)
         goto err_out_register_ha;

I find that it is not crystal clear when scsi_host_set_prot() and 
scsi_host_set_guard() should be called, but not so for setting the shost 
parameters directly, which is common.

>
> So in this case I think that accessor functions are actually better
> because they allow us to print a big fat warning when you twiddle
> something you shouldn't post-initialization. So that's something I think
> we could--and should--improve.
>

Sure, this is an alternative, but I would rather make it obvious when 
these parameters should be set so that this would not be required.

Thanks,
John