linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 02/11] block: Block Device Filtering Mechanism

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: <ZDT86vCXcszoBh4e@infradead.org>
Date:   Mon, 10 Apr 2023 23:23:38 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     Donald Buczek <buczek@...gen.mpg.de>
Cc:     Sergei Shtepa <sergei.shtepa@...am.com>, axboe@...nel.dk,
        hch@...radead.org, corbet@....net, snitzer@...nel.org,
        viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, brauner@...nel.org, willy@...radead.org,
        kch@...dia.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com, vkoul@...nel.org,
        ming.lei@...hat.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/11] block: Block Device Filtering Mechanism

On Sat, Apr 08, 2023 at 05:16:42PM +0200, Donald Buczek wrote:
> Hi, Sergei,
> 
> On 4/4/23 16:08, Sergei Shtepa wrote:
> > The block device filtering mechanism is an API that allows to attach
> > block device filters. Block device filters allow perform additional
> > processing for I/O units.
> > [...]
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/fs.h b/include/uapi/linux/fs.h
> > index b7b56871029c..1848d62979a4 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/fs.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/fs.h
> > @@ -185,6 +185,11 @@ struct fsxattr {
> >   #define BLKROTATIONAL _IO(0x12,126)
> >   #define BLKZEROOUT _IO(0x12,127)
> >   #define BLKGETDISKSEQ _IOR(0x12,128,__u64)
> > +/* 13* is defined in linux/blkzoned.h */
> 
> nit: This is already explained in the comment below your insert.

My faul.  But indeed, no need to duplicate that, instead the new
ioctl opcodes should move below that existing comment.