linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] ublk: add opcode offsets for DRV_IN/DRV

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: <871qhezr4d.fsf@metaspace.dk>
Date:   Tue, 11 Jul 2023 12:15:18 +0200
From:   "Andreas Hindborg (Samsung)" <nmi@...aspace.dk>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>,
        Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@...nel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:BLOCK LAYER" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        Minwoo Im <minwoo.im.dev@...il.com>,
        Matias Bjorling <Matias.Bjorling@....com>,
        gost.dev@...sung.com, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Aravind Ramesh <Aravind.Ramesh@....com>,
        Johannes Thumshirn <jth@...nel.org>,
        Hans Holmberg <Hans.Holmberg@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] ublk: add opcode offsets for DRV_IN/DRV_OUT


Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> writes:

> On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 11:02:15AM +0200, Andreas Hindborg (Samsung) wrote:
>> 
>> Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> writes:
>> 
>> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 08:23:40AM +0200, Andreas Hindborg (Samsung) wrote:
>> >> Yet most on-the-wire protocols for actual hardware does support this
>> >> some way or another.
>> >
>> > Supports what?  Passthrough?  No.
>> 
>> Both SCSI and NVMe has command identifier ranges reserved for vendor
>> specific commands. I would assume that one use of these is to implement
>> passthrough channels to a device for testing out new interfaces. Just
>> guessing though.
>
> Vendor specific commands is an entirely different concept from Linux
> passthrough requests.

And yet they are somewhat similar, in the sense that they allow the user
of a protocol to express semantics that is not captured in the
established protocol. Uring command passthrough -> request passthrough
-> vendor specific commands. They sort of map well in terms of what they
allow the user to achieve. Or did I misunderstand something completely?