linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 02/10] block: Introduce queue limits for copy-offload support

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: <20220224120218.GA9117@test-zns>
Date:   Thu, 24 Feb 2022 17:32:18 +0530
From:   Nitesh Shetty <nj.shetty@...sung.com>
To:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc:     hch@....de, javier@...igon.com, chaitanyak@...dia.com,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        dm-devel@...hat.com, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, axboe@...nel.dk,
        msnitzer@...hat.com, bvanassche@....org,
        martin.petersen@...cle.com, hare@...e.de, kbusch@...nel.org,
        Frederick.Knight@...app.com, osandov@...com,
        lsf-pc@...ts.linux-foundation.org, djwong@...nel.org,
        josef@...icpanda.com, clm@...com, dsterba@...e.com, tytso@....edu,
        jack@...e.com, joshi.k@...sung.com, arnav.dawn@...sung.com,
        nitheshshetty@...il.com, SelvaKumar S <selvakuma.s1@...sung.com>,
        Alasdair Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
        Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
        James Smart <james.smart@...adcom.com>,
        Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@...dia.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/10] block: Introduce queue limits for copy-offload
 support

On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 04:55:41PM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 06:29:01PM +0530, Nitesh Shetty wrote:
> >  Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 01:07:00AM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > > The subject says limits for copy-offload...
> > > 
> > > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 01:29:52PM +0530, Nitesh Shetty wrote:
> > > > Add device limits as sysfs entries,
> > > >         - copy_offload (RW)
> > > >         - copy_max_bytes (RW)
> > > >         - copy_max_hw_bytes (RO)
> > > >         - copy_max_range_bytes (RW)
> > > >         - copy_max_range_hw_bytes (RO)
> > > >         - copy_max_nr_ranges (RW)
> > > >         - copy_max_nr_ranges_hw (RO)
> > > 
> > > Some of these seem like generic... and also I see a few more max_hw ones
> > > not listed above...
> > >
> > queue_limits and sysfs entries are differently named.
> > All sysfs entries start with copy_* prefix. Also it makes easy to lookup
> > all copy sysfs.
> > For queue limits naming, I tried to following existing queue limit
> > convention (like discard).
> 
> My point was that your subject seems to indicate the changes are just
> for copy-offload, but you seem to be adding generic queue limits as
> well. Is that correct? If so then perhaps the subject should be changed
> or the patch split up.
>
Yeah, queue limits indicates copy offload. I think will make more
readable by adding copy_offload_* prefix.

> > > > +static ssize_t queue_copy_offload_store(struct request_queue *q,
> > > > +				       const char *page, size_t count)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	unsigned long copy_offload;
> > > > +	ssize_t ret = queue_var_store(&copy_offload, page, count);
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (ret < 0)
> > > > +		return ret;
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (copy_offload && !q->limits.max_hw_copy_sectors)
> > > > +		return -EINVAL;
> > > 
> > > 
> > > If the kernel schedules, copy_offload may still be true and
> > > max_hw_copy_sectors may be set to 0. Is that an issue?
> > >
> > 
> > This check ensures that, we dont enable offload if device doesnt support
> > offload. I feel it shouldn't be an issue.
> 
> My point was this:
> 
> CPU1                                       CPU2
> Time
> 1) if (copy_offload 
> 2)    ---> preemption so it schedules      
> 3)    ---> some other high priority task  Sets q->limits.max_hw_copy_sectors to 0
> 4) && !q->limits.max_hw_copy_sectors)
> 
> Can something bad happen if we allow for this?
> 
> 

max_hw_copy_sectors is read only for user. And inside kernel, this is set
only by driver at initialization.