linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] nvme: allow 64-bit results in passthru commands

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: <1d7819a9-9504-2dc6-fca4-fbde4f99d92c@grimberg.me>
Date:   Mon, 19 Aug 2019 11:56:28 -0700
From:   Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>
To:     Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>,
        Marta Rybczynska <mrybczyn@...ray.eu>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, axboe <axboe@...com>,
        linux-nvme <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Samuel Jones <sjones@...ray.eu>,
        Guillaume Missonnier <gmissonnier@...ray.eu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] nvme: allow 64-bit results in passthru commands


>> ----- On 16 Aug, 2019, at 15:16, Christoph Hellwig hch@....de wrote:
>>> Sorry for not replying to the earlier version, and thanks for doing
>>> this work.
>>>
>>> I wonder if instead of using our own structure we'd just use
>>> a full nvme SQE for the input and CQE for that output.  Even if we
>>> reserve a few fields that means we are ready for any newly used
>>> field (at least until the SQE/CQE sizes are expanded..).
>>
>> We could do that, nvme_command and nvme_completion are already UAPI.
>> On the other hand that would mean not filling out certain fields like
>> command_id. Can do an approach like this.
> 
> Well, we need to pass user space addresses and lengths, which isn't
> captured in struct nvme_command.

Isn't simply having a 64 variant simpler?