linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 09/11] block: Add BLK_STS

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:   Tue, 16 Mar 2021 10:02:33 -0600
From:   Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Stephen Bates <sbates@...thlin.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Christian König <christian.koenig@....com>,
        Ira Weiny <iweiny@...el.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        Don Dutile <ddutile@...hat.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
        Jakowski Andrzej <andrzej.jakowski@...el.com>,
        Minturn Dave B <dave.b.minturn@...el.com>,
        Jason Ekstrand <jason@...kstrand.net>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Xiong Jianxin <jianxin.xiong@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 09/11] block: Add BLK_STS_P2PDMA



On 2021-03-16 2:00 a.m., Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 04:31:39PM -0700, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>> Create a specific error code for when P2PDMA pages are passed to a block
>> devices that cannot map them (due to no IOMMU support or ACS protections).
>>
>> This makes request errors in these cases more informative of as to what
>> caused the error.
> 
> I really don't think we should bother with a specific error code here,
> we don't add a new status for every single possible logic error in the
> caller.

I originally had BLK_STS_IOERR but those errors suggested to people that
the hardware had failed on the request when in fact it was a user error.
I'll try BLK_STS_TARGET unless there's any objection or someone thinks
another error code would make more sense.

Logan