linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 1/3] bio: limit bio max size

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: <20210416055039.20126-1-nanich.lee@samsung.com>
Date:   Fri, 16 Apr 2021 14:50:39 +0900
From:   Changheun Lee <nanich.lee@...sung.com>
To:     bvanassche@....org
Cc:     Johannes.Thumshirn@....com, asml.silence@...il.com,
        axboe@...nel.dk, damien.lemoal@....com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        hch@...radead.org, jisoo2146.oh@...sung.com,
        junho89.kim@...sung.com, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ming.lei@...hat.com,
        mj0123.lee@...sung.com, nanich.lee@...sung.com, osandov@...com,
        patchwork-bot@...nel.org, seunghwan.hyun@...sung.com,
        sookwan7.kim@...sung.com, tj@...nel.org, tom.leiming@...il.com,
        woosung2.lee@...sung.com, yt0928.kim@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/3] bio: limit bio max size

> On 4/15/21 3:38 AM, Changheun Lee wrote:
> > @@ -167,6 +168,7 @@ void blk_queue_max_hw_sectors(struct request_queue *q, unsigned int max_hw_secto
> >  	max_sectors = round_down(max_sectors,
> >  				 limits->logical_block_size >> SECTOR_SHIFT);
> >  	limits->max_sectors = max_sectors;
> > +	limits->bio_max_bytes = max_sectors << SECTOR_SHIFT;
> >  
> >  	q->backing_dev_info->io_pages = max_sectors >> (PAGE_SHIFT - 9);
> >  }
> 
> Can the new shift operation overflow? If so, how about using
> check_shl_overflow()?

OK, I'll check.

> 
> > @@ -538,6 +540,8 @@ int blk_stack_limits(struct queue_limits *t, struct queue_limits *b,
> >  {
> >  	unsigned int top, bottom, alignment, ret = 0;
> >  
> > +	t->bio_max_bytes = min_not_zero(t->bio_max_bytes, b->bio_max_bytes);
> > +
> >  	t->max_sectors = min_not_zero(t->max_sectors, b->max_sectors);
> >  	t->max_hw_sectors = min_not_zero(t->max_hw_sectors, b->max_hw_sectors);
> >  	t->max_dev_sectors = min_not_zero(t->max_dev_sectors, b->max_dev_sectors);
> 
> The above will limit bio_max_bytes for all stacked block devices, which
> is something we do not want. I propose to set t->bio_max_bytes to
> UINT_MAX in blk_stack_limits() and to let the stacked driver (e.g.
> dm-crypt) decide whether or not to lower that value.
> 

Actually, bio size should be limited in dm-crypt too. Because almost I/O
from user space will be gone to dm-crypt first. I/O issue timing will be
delayed if bio size is not limited in dm-crypt.
Do you have any idea to decide whether takes lower bio max size, or not
in the stacked driver?
Add a flag to decide this in driver layer like before?
Or insert code manually in each stacked driver if it is needed?

> > diff --git a/include/linux/bio.h b/include/linux/bio.h
> > index d0246c92a6e8..e5add63da3af 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/bio.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/bio.h
> > @@ -106,6 +106,8 @@ static inline void *bio_data(struct bio *bio)
> >  	return NULL;
> >  }
> >  
> > +extern unsigned int bio_max_size(struct bio *bio);
> 
> You may want to define bio_max_size() as an inline function in bio.h
> such that no additional function calls are introduced in the hot path.

Thanks, I'll try.

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bart.