linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] libata-scsi: Cap ata_device->max_sectors according to shost->max

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, 28 Jun 2022 18:14:25 +0900
From:   Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>
To:     John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>, joro@...tes.org,
        will@...nel.org, jejb@...ux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
        hch@....de, m.szyprowski@...sung.com, robin.murphy@....com
Cc:     linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        iommu@...ts.linux.dev, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        linuxarm@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] libata-scsi: Cap ata_device->max_sectors according
 to shost->max_sectors

On 6/28/22 16:54, John Garry wrote:
> On 28/06/2022 00:24, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>> On 6/28/22 00:25, John Garry wrote:
>>> ATA devices (struct ata_device) have a max_sectors field which is
>>> configured internally in libata. This is then used to (re)configure the
>>> associated sdev request queue max_sectors value from how it is earlier set
>>> in __scsi_init_queue(). In __scsi_init_queue() the max_sectors value is set
>>> according to shost limits, which includes host DMA mapping limits.
>>>
>>> Cap the ata_device max_sectors according to shost->max_sectors to respect
>>> this shost limit.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: John Garry<john.garry@...wei.com>
>>> Acked-by: Damien Le Moal<damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>
>> Nit: please change the patch title to "ata: libata-scsi: Cap ..."
>>
> 
> ok, but it's going to be an even longer title :)
> 
> BTW, this patch has no real dependency on the rest of the series, so 
> could be taken separately if you prefer.

Sure, you can send it separately. Adding it through the scsi tree is fine too.

> 
> Thanks,
> John


-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research