linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv3 08/10] block: add pi for nvme enhanced integrity

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: <yq1r17l12l5.fsf@ca-mkp.ca.oracle.com>
Date:   Tue, 01 Mar 2022 22:15:18 -0500
From:   "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
        x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, axboe@...nel.dk,
        martin.petersen@...cle.com, colyli@...e.de,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 08/10] block: add pi for nvme enhanced integrity

Christoph,

>> +static blk_status_t nvme_crc64_generate(struct blk_integrity_iter *iter,
>> +					enum t10_dif_type type)
>
> Shouldn't the naming be something more like ext_pi_*?  For one thing
> I kinda hate having the nvme prefix here in block layer code, but also
> nvme supports the normal 8 byte PI tuples, so this is a bit confusing.

The rationale behind the original t10 prefix was that the format was
defined by the T10 organization. At the time a T13 format was also on
the table. So from that perspective, using nvme_ here is correct. I do
like ext_ better, though.

I don't particularly appreciate the way the new formats were defined in
NVMe. I would have preferred new types instead of this "just like type N
except for all these differences" approach. But that comes from NVMe
completely missing how DIX removed all the format type knowledge from
the controller/device and instead put the burden on the driver to tell
the device what and how to check.

In any case: Naming is hard, the code looks fine to me.

Reviewed-by: Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@...cle.com>

-- 
Martin K. Petersen	Oracle Linux Engineering