linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 2/2] scsi: ufs: Return a bsg request immediatley if eh-in-progress

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <DM6PR04MB6575E77BB149D632050324A2FC919@DM6PR04MB6575.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Mon, 8 Nov 2021 18:00:36 +0000
From:   Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com>
To:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
        "James E . J . Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
CC:     "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] scsi: ufs: Return a bsg request immediatley if
 eh-in-progress

 
> On 11/8/21 9:24 AM, Avri Altman wrote:
> > I am not sure. I would expect a retry / polling / other, if any, to be
> > done in user-space and not in the kernel. e.g. a common practice in
> > the code that send SG_IO or other ioctls is to retry on EBUSY. Not
> > sure that this is the case in ufs-utils though.
> Shouldn't we aim to make sure that user space code does not have to use
> busy waiting?
I don't know.
Waiting in the kernel seems like an unnecessary complication.
If you find it useless,  better to just drop it.

I looked it up in ufs-utils public repository (https://github.com/westerndigitalcorporation/ufs-utils), and it looks like that:

while (((ret = ioctl(fd, SG_IO, &io_hdr_v4)) < 0) &&
		((errno == EINTR) || (errno == EAGAIN)))
		;
Thanks,
Avri

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bart.