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]

Message-ID: <306df4cf-0ee0-2b1e-044c-aed6c70122f9@suse.de>
Date:   Tue, 22 Mar 2022 15:03:04 +0100
From:   Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
To:     John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>, 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 3/22/22 13:30, John Garry wrote:
> 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.
> 
Well; I found that most drivers I had been looking at the scsi command 
payload isn't used at all; the drivers primarily cared about the 
(driver-provided) payload, and were completely ignoring the scsi command 
payload.

Similar for ATA/libsas: you basically never issue real scsi commands, 
but either 'raw' ATA requests or SCSI TMFs. None of which are scsi 
commands, so providing them is a bit of a waste.

(And causes irritations, too, as a scsi command requires associated 
pointers like ->device etc to be set up. Which makes it tricky to use 
for the initial device setup.)

>> 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.
> 
Yeah, that's what I had in mind.

Cheers,

Hannes
-- 
Dr. Hannes Reinecke		           Kernel Storage Architect
hare@...e.de			                  +49 911 74053 688
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg), GF: Felix Imendörffer