[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200724193351.GA2857771@dhcp-10-100-145-180.wdl.wdc.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2020 12:33:51 -0700
From: Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>
To: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
Chaitanya Kulkarni <Chaitanya.Kulkarni@....com>,
Max Gurtovoy <maxg@...lanox.com>,
Stephen Bates <sbates@...thlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v16 6/9] nvmet-passthru: Add passthru code to process
commands
On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 11:25:17AM -0600, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
> + /*
> + * The passthru NVMe driver may have a limit on the number of segments
> + * which depends on the host's memory fragementation. To solve this,
> + * ensure mdts is limitted to the pages equal to the number of
limited
> + /* don't support fuse commands */
> + id->fuses = 0;
If a host were to set a fuse, the target should return an Invalid Field
error. Just to future-proof, rejecting commands with any flags set
(other than SGL, which you handled in patch 1/9) is probably what should
happen, like:
> +u16 nvmet_parse_passthru_io_cmd(struct nvmet_req *req)
> +{
if (req->cmd->common.flags & ~NVME_CMD_SGL_ALL)
return NVME_SC_INVALID_FIELD;
Or maybe we could obviate the need for 1/9 with something like:
req->cmd->common.flags &= ~NVME_CMD_SGL_ALL;
if (req->cmd->common.flags)
return NVME_SC_INVALID_FIELD;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists