linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 08/13] btrfs:zoned: make sb for npo2 zone devices align with sb log offsets

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:   Fri, 20 May 2022 11:09:23 +0200
From:   Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@...sung.com>
To:     Naohiro Aota <Naohiro.Aota@....com>
CC:     "axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        "damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com" <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>,
        "pankydev8@...il.com" <pankydev8@...il.com>,
        "dsterba@...e.com" <dsterba@...e.com>, "hch@....de" <hch@....de>,
        "linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        "jiangbo.365@...edance.com" <jiangbo.365@...edance.com>,
        "linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        "gost.dev@...sung.com" <gost.dev@...sung.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "dm-devel@...hat.com" <dm-devel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 08/13] btrfs:zoned: make sb for npo2 zone devices
 align with sb log offsets

On 5/19/22 09:59, Naohiro Aota wrote:
>> +
>>  static int sb_log_location(struct block_device *bdev, struct blk_zone *zones,
>> -			   int rw, u64 *bytenr_ret)
>> +			   int rw, int mirror, u64 *bytenr_ret)
>>  {
>>  	u64 wp;
>>  	int ret;
>> +	bool zones_empty = false;
>>  
>>  	if (zones[0].type == BLK_ZONE_TYPE_CONVENTIONAL) {
>>  		*bytenr_ret = zones[0].start << SECTOR_SHIFT;
>> @@ -775,13 +808,31 @@ static int sb_log_location(struct block_device *bdev, struct blk_zone *zones,
>>  	if (ret != -ENOENT && ret < 0)
>>  		return ret;
>>  
>> +	if (ret == -ENOENT)
>> +		zones_empty = true;
>> +
> 
> I think, we don't need this. We need to issue the zeroout when
> zones[0]->cond == BLK_ZONE_COND_EMPTY && !is_power_of_2(...) after sending
> ZONE_RESET if necessary. No?
> 
Yeah. I added this extra check to cover all the cases possible. But you
are right that it is enough to issue zeroout only for this condition:
zones[0]->cond == BLK_ZONE_COND_EMPTY && !is_power_of_2(...) as both the
zones empty is not likely to happen.
>>  	if (rw == WRITE) {
>>  		struct blk_zone *reset = NULL;
>> +		bool is_sb_offset_write_req = false;
>> +		u32 reset_zone_nr = -1;
>>  
>> -		if (wp == zones[0].start << SECTOR_SHIFT)
>> +		if (wp == zones[0].start << SECTOR_SHIFT) {
>>  			reset = &zones[0];
>> -		else if (wp == zones[1].start << SECTOR_SHIFT)
>> +			reset_zone_nr = 0;