linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/11] blk-mq: Add blk_mq_init_queue

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, 22 Mar 2022 12:30:42 +0000
From:   John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To:     Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
CC:     <axboe@...nel.dk>, <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>,
        <bvanassche@....org>, <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        <martin.petersen@...cle.com>, <ming.lei@...hat.com>,
        <chenxiang66@...ilicon.com>, <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>, <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
        <beanhuo@...ron.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] blk-mq: Add blk_mq_init_queue_ops()

On 22/03/2022 12:16, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 3/22/22 12:33, John Garry wrote:
>> On 22/03/2022 11:18, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 06:39:35PM +0800, John Garry wrote:
>>>> Add an API to allocate a request queue which accepts a custom set of
>>>> blk_mq_ops for that request queue.
>>>>
>>>> The reason which we may want custom ops is for queuing requests 
>>>> which we
>>>> don't want to go through the normal queuing path.
>>>
>>> Eww.  I really do not think we should do separate ops per queue, as that
>>> is going to get us into a deep mess eventually.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah... so far (here) it works out quite nicely, as we don't need to 
>> change the SCSI blk mq ops nor allocate a scsi_device - everything is 
>> just separate.
>>
>> The other method mentioned previously was to add the request 
>> "reserved" flag and add new paths in scsi_queue_rq() et al to handle 
>> this, but that gets messy.
>>
>> Any other ideas ...?
>>
> 
> As outlined in the other mail, I think might be useful is to have a 
> _third_ type of requests (in addition to the normal and the reserved ones).
> That one would be allocated from the normal I/O pool (and hence could 
> fail if the pool is exhausted), but would be able to carry a different 
> payload (type) than the normal requests.

As mentioned in the cover letter response, it just seems best to keep 
the normal scsi_cmnd payload but have other means to add on the internal 
command data, like using host_scribble or scsi_cmnd priv data.

> And we could have a separate queue_rq for these requests, as we can 
> differentiate them in the block layer.

I don't know, let me think about it. Maybe we could add an "internal" 
blk flag, which uses a separate "internal" queue_rq callback.

Thanks,
John