linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] block: blk_interposer

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:   Sat, 12 Dec 2020 11:14:31 -0700
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
        Sergei Shtepa <sergei.shtepa@...am.com>, hch@....de
Cc:     "johannes.thumshirn@....com" <johannes.thumshirn@....com>,
        "koct9i@...il.com" <koct9i@...il.com>,
        "ming.lei@...hat.com" <ming.lei@...hat.com>,
        "josef@...icpanda.com" <josef@...icpanda.com>,
        "steve@....org" <steve@....org>,
        "linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Pavel Tide <Pavel.TIde@...am.com>, dm-devel@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] block: blk_interposer - Block Layer Interposer

On 12/11/20 11:03 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 12/11/20 6:04 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 12/11/20 9:56 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>>> On 12/11/20 5:33 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> On 12/11/20 9:30 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
>>>>> While I still think there needs to be a proper _upstream_ consumer of
>>>>> blk_interposer as a condition of it going in.. I'll let others make the
>>>>> call.
>>>>
>>>> That's an unequivocal rule.
>>>>
>>>>> As such, I'll defer to Jens, Christoph and others on whether your
>>>>> minimalist blk_interposer hook is acceptable in the near-term.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think so, we don't do short term bandaids just to plan on
>>>> ripping that out when the real functionality is there. IMHO, the dm
>>>> approach is the way to go - it provides exactly the functionality that
>>>> is needed in an appropriate way, instead of hacking some "interposer"
>>>> into the core block layer.
>>>>
>>> Which is my plan, too.
>>>
>>> I'll be working with the Veeam folks to present a joint patchset
>>> (including the DM bits) for the next round.
>>
>> Just to be clear, core block additions for something that dm will
>> consume is obviously fine. Adding this as block layer functionality than
>> then exposes an application API for setting it up, tearing down, etc -
>> that is definitely NOT
>>
> That was never my intention.
> Any consumers of this thing would need to be in-kernel.
> If that was your concern.

Yep, that is/was indeed my concern!

-- 
Jens Axboe