linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v20 01/12] block: Introduce queue limits and sysfs for copy-offload 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]

Message-ID: <174d4908-b81c-4775-9b99-b0941451cb0e@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 10:49:08 -0700
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Nitesh Shetty <nj.shetty@...sung.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
 Alasdair Kergon <agk@...hat.com>, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...nel.org>,
 Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>, Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>,
 Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
 Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@...dia.com>, Alexander Viro
 <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
 Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, martin.petersen@...cle.com, david@...morbit.com,
 hare@...e.de, damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com, anuj20.g@...sung.com,
 joshi.k@...sung.com, nitheshshetty@...il.com, gost.dev@...sung.com,
 linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, dm-devel@...ts.linux.dev,
 linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v20 01/12] block: Introduce queue limits and sysfs for
 copy-offload support

On 5/21/24 07:25, Nitesh Shetty wrote:
> On 20/05/24 03:42PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On 5/20/24 03:20, Nitesh Shetty wrote:
>>> +    if (max_copy_bytes & (queue_logical_block_size(q) - 1))
>>> +        return -EINVAL;
>>
>> Wouldn't it be more user-friendly if this check would be left out? Does any code
>> depend on max_copy_bytes being a multiple of the logical block size?
>>
> In block layer, we use max_copy_bytes to split larger copy into
> device supported copy size.
> Simple copy spec requires length to be logical block size aligned.
> Hence this check.

Will blkdev_copy_sanity_check() reject invalid copy requests even if this
check is left out?

Thanks,

Bart.