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]

Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 07:05:12 +0000
From: Nitesh Shetty <nj.shetty@...sung.com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
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 22/05/24 10:49AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>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?
>
Yes, you are right. We have checks both places.
We will remove checks in one of the places.

Thank you,
Nitesh Shetty