linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] rust: block: introduce `kernel::block::mq` module

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: <87r0e5j2st.fsf@metaspace.dk>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 06:48:18 -0600
From: Andreas Hindborg <nmi@...aspace.dk>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,  Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,  Keith
 Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>,  Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@....com>,
  Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,  Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>,
  "linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,  Andreas
 Hindborg <a.hindborg@...sung.com>,  Wedson Almeida Filho
 <wedsonaf@...il.com>,  Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,  Matthew
 Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,  Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,  Alex
 Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,  Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,  Gary
 Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,  Björn Roy Baron
 <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
  Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>,  Alice Ryhl
 <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,  Chaitanya Kulkarni <chaitanyak@...dia.com>,  Luis
 Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,  Yexuan Yang <1182282462@...t.edu.cn>,
  Sergio González Collado <sergio.collado@...il.com>,  Joel
 Granados
 <j.granados@...sung.com>,  "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)"
 <kernel@...kajraghav.com>,  Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@...sung.com>,  Niklas
 Cassel <Niklas.Cassel@....com>,  Philipp Stanner <pstanner@...hat.com>,
  Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>,  Johannes Thumshirn
 <Johannes.Thumshirn@....com>,  Matias Bjørling
 <m@...rling.me>,  open list
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,  "rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org"
 <rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>,  "lsf-pc@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
 <lsf-pc@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,  "gost.dev@...sung.com"
 <gost.dev@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] rust: block: introduce `kernel::block::mq` module


Hi Bart,

Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org> writes:

> On 5/12/24 11:39, Andreas Hindborg wrote:
>> +    /// Set the logical block size of the device.
>> +    ///
>> +    /// This is the smallest unit the storage device can address. It is
>> +    /// typically 512 bytes.
>
> Hmm ... all block devices that I have encountered recently have a
> logical block size of 4096 bytes. Isn't this the preferred logical
> block size for SSDs and for SMR hard disks?

Yes, that is probably true. This text was lifted from the entry on the
sysfs attribute in `Documentation/ABI/stable/sysfs-block`, but maybe
that needs to be updated as well.

>
>> +    /// Set the physical block size of the device.
>> +    ///
>> +    /// This is the smallest unit a physical storage device can write
>> +    /// atomically. It is usually the same as the logical block size but may be
>> +    /// bigger. One example is SATA drives with 4KB sectors that expose a
>> +    /// 512-byte logical block size to the operating system.
>
> Please be consistent and change "4 KB sectors" into "4 KB physical block
> size".

OK, I will. I can CC the changes to
`Documentation/ABI/stable/sysfs-block` then'

>
> I think that the physical block size can also be smaller than the
> logical block size. From the SCSI SBC standard:
>
> Table 91 — LOGICAL BLOCKS PER PHYSICAL BLOCK EXPONENT field
> -----  ------------------------------------------------------------
> Code   Description
> -----  ------------------------------------------------------------
> 0      One or more physical blocks per logical block (the number of
>        physical blocks per logical block is not reported).
> n > 0  2**n logical blocks per physical block
> -----  ------------------------------------------------------------

How does that work? Would the drive do a read/modify/write internally?
Would that not make the physical block size as seen from the OS equal to
the smaller logical block size?

>
>> +impl<T: Operations, S: GenDiskState> GenDisk<T, S> {
>> +    /// Call to tell the block layer the capacity of the device in sectors (512B).
>
> Why to use any other unit than bytes in Rust block::mq APIs? sector_t
> was introduced before 64-bit CPUs became available to reduce the number
> of bytes required to represent offsets. I don't think that this is still
> a concern today. Hence my proposal to be consistent in the Rust block::mq API
> and to use bytes as the unit in all APIs.

I think that is very good idea. How do others feel about this?

BR Andreas