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  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:   Sat, 16 May 2020 10:14:14 -0700
From:   Bart Van Assche <>
To:     Avri Altman <>,
        "James E . J . Bottomley" <>,
        "Martin K . Petersen" <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>
Cc:     "" <>,
        "" <>,
        Zang Leigang <>,
        Avi Shchislowski <>,
        Bean Huo <>,
        "" <>,
        "" <>,
        Sang-yoon Oh <>,
        yongmyung lee <>,
        Jinyoung CHOI <>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/13] scsi: ufs: Add HPB Support

On 2020-05-16 02:14, Avri Altman wrote:
>> 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.
> So should we keep perusing this direction, or leave it, and concentrate in Bean's RFC?
> Or maybe come up with a 3rd way?

Hi Avri,

I prefer to proceed with reviewing Bean's patch series. If someone
prefers a different approach, I think this is a good time to bring that up.



Powered by blists - more mailing lists