linux-kernel - RE: [RFC PATCH 00/13] scsi: ufs: Add HPB Support

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: <SN6PR04MB46408050B71E3A6225D6C495FCBA0@SN6PR04MB4640.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Sat, 16 May 2020 09:14:18 +0000
From:   Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com>
To:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
        "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>
CC:     "alim.akhtar@...sung.com" <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
        "asutoshd@...eaurora.org" <asutoshd@...eaurora.org>,
        Zang Leigang <zangleigang@...ilicon.com>,
        Avi Shchislowski <Avi.Shchislowski@....com>,
        Bean Huo <beanhuo@...ron.com>,
        "cang@...eaurora.org" <cang@...eaurora.org>,
        "stanley.chu@...iatek.com" <stanley.chu@...iatek.com>,
        MOHAMMED RAFIQ KAMAL BASHA <md.rafiq@...sung.com>,
        Sang-yoon Oh <sangyoon.oh@...sung.com>,
        yongmyung lee <ymhungry.lee@...sung.com>,
        Jinyoung CHOI <j-young.choi@...sung.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH 00/13] scsi: ufs: Add HPB Support

Hi Bart,

> 
> Hi Avri,
> 
> Thank you for having taken the time to publish your work. The way this
> series has been split into individual patches makes reviewing easy.
> Additionally, the cover letter and patch descriptions are very
> informative, insightful and well written. However, I'm concerned about a
> key aspect of the implementation, namely relying on a device handler to
> alter the meaning of a block layer request. My concern about this
> approach is that at most one device handler can be associated with a
> SCSI LLD. If in the future more functionality would be added to the UFS
> spec and if it would be desirable to implement that functionality as a
> new kernel module, it won't be possible to implement that functionality
> as a new device handler. So I think that not relying on the device
> handler infrastructure is more future proof because that removes the
> restrictions we have to deal with when using the device handler framework.
>  Thanks,
So should we keep perusing this direction, or leave it, and concentrate in Bean's RFC?
Or maybe come up with a 3rd way?

Thanks,
Avri

> 
> Bart.