linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 07/10] scsi: libsas: Delete sas_ssp_task.task

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <057db5dc-d940-4662-8b51-a20fd7037402@suse.de>
Date:   Tue, 24 Oct 2023 12:08:42 +0200
From:   Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
To:     John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>, jejb@...ux.ibm.com,
        martin.petersen@...cle.com, chenxiang66@...ilicon.com,
        artur.paszkiewicz@...el.com, yanaijie@...wei.com,
        jinpu.wang@...ud.ionos.com
Cc:     linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        dlemoal@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/10] scsi: libsas: Delete sas_ssp_task.task_prio

On 10/24/23 12:07, John Garry wrote:
> On 09/10/2023 07:55, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>>> diff --git a/include/scsi/libsas.h b/include/scsi/libsas.h
>>> index d77db53cbd8d..5b2e6932c564 100644
>>> --- a/include/scsi/libsas.h
>>> +++ b/include/scsi/libsas.h
>>> @@ -565,7 +565,6 @@ enum task_attribute {
>>>   struct sas_ssp_task {
>>>       u8     LUN[8];
>>>       enum   task_attribute task_attr;
>>> -    u8     task_prio;
>>>       struct scsi_cmnd *cmd;
>>>   };
>> Hmm. While true in general, we lose information on how the 'prio' 
>> field is coded for the various drivers.
>> Would it be an idea to use explicitly state TASK_ATTR_SIMPLE
>> in the various drivers such that we know what to fix if we ever
>> decide to bring task attributes back to life?
> 
> The HW encoding for these drivers is the same as in the SAS COMMAND 
> frame - Command information unit structure, right? So the amount of info 
> lost is reduced. And we also have source control history.
> 
> I'd be more inclined to get rid of setting task attributes similarly as 
> well.
> 
Fair enough.

Reviewed-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>

Cheers,

Hannes