linux-kernel - RE: Re: [PATCH v19 2/3] scsi: ufs: L2P map management for HPB read

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: <20210208080109epcms2p6ec657586e6afa269876d4f6205af2a3c@epcms2p6>
Date:   Mon, 08 Feb 2021 17:01:09 +0900
From:   Daejun Park <daejun7.park@...sung.com>
To:     Can Guo <cang@...eaurora.org>,
        Daejun Park <daejun7.park@...sung.com>
CC:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "avri.altman@....com" <avri.altman@....com>,
        "jejb@...ux.ibm.com" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "martin.petersen@...cle.com" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        "asutoshd@...eaurora.org" <asutoshd@...eaurora.org>,
        "stanley.chu@...iatek.com" <stanley.chu@...iatek.com>,
        "huobean@...il.com" <huobean@...il.com>,
        "bvanassche@....org" <bvanassche@....org>,
        ALIM AKHTAR <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
        "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sung-Jun Park <sungjun07.park@...sung.com>,
        yongmyung lee <ymhungry.lee@...sung.com>,
        Jinyoung CHOI <j-young.choi@...sung.com>,
        BoRam Shin <boram.shin@...sung.com>,
        SEUNGUK SHIN <seunguk.shin@...sung.com>
Subject: RE: Re: [PATCH v19 2/3] scsi: ufs: L2P map management for HPB read

> +
> > +static void ufshpb_kick_map_work(struct ufshpb_lu *hpb)
> > +{
> > +        bool ret = true;
>  
> -> ret = false;
>  
> > +        unsigned long flags;
> > +
> > +        spin_lock_irqsave(&hpb->rsp_list_lock, flags);
> > +        if (!list_empty(&hpb->lh_inact_rgn) || 
> > !list_empty(&hpb->lh_act_srgn))
> > +                ret = false;
>  
> -> ret = true;

Thanks, I will fix it.
  
> > +        spin_unlock_irqrestore(&hpb->rsp_list_lock, flags);
> > +
> > +        if (ret)
> > +                queue_work(ufshpb_wq, &hpb->map_work);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static bool ufshpb_is_hpb_rsp_valid(struct ufs_hba *hba,
> > +                                         struct ufshcd_lrb *lrbp,
> > +                                         struct utp_hpb_rsp *rsp_field)
> > +{
> > +        if (be16_to_cpu(rsp_field->sense_data_len) != DEV_SENSE_SEG_LEN ||
> > +            rsp_field->desc_type != DEV_DES_TYPE ||
> > +            rsp_field->additional_len != DEV_ADDITIONAL_LEN ||
> > +            rsp_field->hpb_op == HPB_RSP_NONE ||
>  
> HPB_RSP_NONE is checked again in switch-case, no need of this line.

OK, I agree.

> > +static void ufshpb_rsp_req_region_update(struct ufshpb_lu *hpb,
> > +                                         struct utp_hpb_rsp *rsp_field)
> > +{
> > +        int i, rgn_idx, srgn_idx;
> > +
> > +        BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(struct ufshpb_active_field) != 
> > HPB_ACT_FIELD_SIZE);
> > +        /*
> > +         * If the active region and the inactive region are the same,
> > +         * we will inactivate this region.
> > +         * The device could check this (region inactivated) and
> > +         * will response the proper active region information
> > +         */
> > +        spin_lock(&hpb->rsp_list_lock);
> > +        for (i = 0; i < rsp_field->active_rgn_cnt; i++) {
> > +                rgn_idx =
> > +                        be16_to_cpu(rsp_field->hpb_active_field[i].active_rgn);
> > +                srgn_idx =
> > +                        be16_to_cpu(rsp_field->hpb_active_field[i].active_srgn);
> > +
> > +                dev_dbg(&hpb->sdev_ufs_lu->sdev_dev,
> > +                        "activate(%d) region %d - %d\n", i, rgn_idx, srgn_idx);
> > +                ufshpb_update_active_info(hpb, rgn_idx, srgn_idx);
> > +                hpb->stats.rb_active_cnt++;
> > +        }
> > +
> > +        for (i = 0; i < rsp_field->inactive_rgn_cnt; i++) {
> > +                rgn_idx = be16_to_cpu(rsp_field->hpb_inactive_field[i]);
> > +                dev_dbg(&hpb->sdev_ufs_lu->sdev_dev,
> > +                        "inactivate(%d) region %d\n", i, rgn_idx);
> > +                ufshpb_update_inactive_info(hpb, rgn_idx);
> > +                hpb->stats.rb_inactive_cnt++;
> > +        }
> > +        spin_unlock(&hpb->rsp_list_lock);
> > +
> > +        dev_dbg(&hpb->sdev_ufs_lu->sdev_dev, "Noti: #ACT %u #INACT %u\n",
> > +                rsp_field->active_rgn_cnt, rsp_field->inactive_rgn_cnt);
> > +
> > +        queue_work(ufshpb_wq, &hpb->map_work);
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * This function will parse recommended active subregion information 
> > in sense
> > + * data field of response UPIU with SAM_STAT_GOOD state.
> > + */
> > +void ufshpb_rsp_upiu(struct ufs_hba *hba, struct ufshcd_lrb *lrbp)
> > +{
> > +        struct ufshpb_lu *hpb = ufshpb_get_hpb_data(lrbp->cmd->device);
> > +        struct utp_hpb_rsp *rsp_field;
> > +        int data_seg_len;
> > +
> > +        if (!hpb)
> > +                return;
>  
> You are assuming HPB recommandations only come in responses to LUs
> with HPB enabled, but the specs says the recommandations can come
> in any responses with GOOD status, meaning you should check the *hpb
> which belongs to the LUN in res_field, but not the one belongs to
> lrbp->cmd->device.

I will add codes for checking lun to prevent getting wrong HPB
recommandations.

Thanks,
Daejun