linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 2/2] ublk: enable zoned storage support

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:   Wed, 02 Aug 2023 11:09:56 +0200
From:   "Andreas Hindborg (Samsung)" <nmi@...aspace.dk>
To:     Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
Cc:     Niklas Cassel <Niklas.Cassel@....com>,
        Matias Bjørling <Matias.Bjorling@....com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@...nel.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        "gost.dev@...sung.com" <gost.dev@...sung.com>,
        "hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>,
        Johannes Thumshirn <jth@...nel.org>,
        Aravind Ramesh <Aravind.Ramesh@....com>,
        "open list:BLOCK LAYER" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        Hans Holmberg <Hans.Holmberg@....com>,
        Minwoo Im <minwoo.im.dev@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 2/2] ublk: enable zoned storage support


Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com> writes:

> On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 02:11:56PM +0200, Andreas Hindborg (Samsung) wrote:
>> 
>> Niklas Cassel <Niklas.Cassel@....com> writes:
>> 
>> > On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 09:25:10AM +0200, Andreas Hindborg wrote:
>> >> From: Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...sung.com>
>> >
>> > Hello Andreas!
>> >
>> 
>> <snip>
>> 
>> >>  	/* for READ request, writing data in iod->addr to rq buffers */
>> >> @@ -1120,6 +1404,11 @@ static void ublk_commit_completion(struct ublk_device *ub,
>> >>  	/* find the io request and complete */
>> >>  	req = blk_mq_tag_to_rq(ub->tag_set.tags[qid], tag);
>> >>  
>> >> +	if (io->flags & UBLK_IO_FLAG_ZONE_APPEND) {
>> >
>> > Do we really need to introduce a completely new flag just for this?
>> >
>> > if (req_op(req) == REQ_OP_ZONE_APPEND)
>> >
>> > should work just as well, no?
>> 
>> Makes sense, thanks.
>
> The above one can be replaced with req_op().
>
> But extra cost is added when retrieving request for the check in
> __ublk_ch_uring_cmd().
>

How about this (diff to v9):

@@ -1709,7 +1702,7 @@ static int __ublk_ch_uring_cmd(struct io_uring_cmd *cmd,
 		goto out;
 
 	if (ublk_support_user_copy(ubq) &&
-	    !(io->flags & UBLK_IO_FLAG_ZONE_APPEND) && ub_cmd->addr) {
+	    _IOC_NR(cmd_op) != UBLK_IO_COMMIT_AND_FETCH_REQ && ub_cmd->addr) {
 		ret = -EINVAL;
 		goto out;
 	}
@@ -1751,6 +1744,12 @@ static int __ublk_ch_uring_cmd(struct io_uring_cmd *cmd,
 		if (!(io->flags & UBLK_IO_FLAG_OWNED_BY_SRV))
 			goto out;
 
+		if (ublk_support_user_copy(ubq) &&
+		    req_op(req) != REQ_OP_ZONE_APPEND && ub_cmd->addr) {
+			ret = -EINVAL;
+			goto out;
+		}
+
 		if (!ublk_support_user_copy(ubq)) {
 			/*
 			 * COMMIT_AND_FETCH_REQ has to provide IO buffer if


BR Andreas