linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v20 02/12] Add infrastructure for copy offload in block and request layer.

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: <20240529061736.rubnzwkkavgsgmie@nj.shetty@samsung.com>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 06:17:36 +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 02/12] Add infrastructure for copy offload in block
 and request layer.

On 24/05/24 01:33PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>On 5/20/24 03:20, Nitesh Shetty wrote:
>>We add two new opcode REQ_OP_COPY_DST, REQ_OP_COPY_SRC.
>>Since copy is a composite operation involving src and dst sectors/lba,
>>each needs to be represented by a separate bio to make it compatible
>>with device mapper.
>>We expect caller to take a plug and send bio with destination information,
>>followed by bio with source information.
>>Once the dst bio arrives we form a request and wait for source
>>bio. Upon arrival of source bio we merge these two bio's and send
>>corresponding request down to device driver.
>>Merging non copy offload bio is avoided by checking for copy specific
>>opcodes in merge function.
>
>In this patch I don't see any changes for blk_attempt_bio_merge(). Does
>this mean that combining REQ_OP_COPY_DST and REQ_OP_COPY_SRC will never
>happen if the QUEUE_FLAG_NOMERGES request queue flag has been set?
>
Yes, in this case copy won't work, as both src and dst bio reach driver
as part of separate requests.
We will add this as part of documentation.

>Can it happen that the REQ_NOMERGE flag is set by __bio_split_to_limits()
>for REQ_OP_COPY_DST or REQ_OP_COPY_SRC bios? Will this happen if the
>following condition is met?
>
>dst_bio->nr_phys_segs + src_bio->nr_phys_segs > max_segments
>
No, this should not happen. We don't use bio_split_rw for copy.
We have added a separate function to check for split incase of
copy(bio_split_copy), which doesn't allow copy bio splits,
hence REQ_NOMERGE flag won't be set.

>Is it allowed to set REQ_PREFLUSH or REQ_FUA for REQ_OP_COPY_DST or
>REQ_OP_COPY_SRC bios? I'm asking this because these flags disable merging.
>
>>From include/linux/blk_types.h:
>
>#define REQ_NOMERGE_FLAGS (REQ_NOMERGE | REQ_PREFLUSH | REQ_FUA)
>
No, setting these flags won't allow copy bio's to merge and hence copy
won't work.
We suggest to use helper API blkdev_copy_offload to achieve the
copy which won't be setting these flags.

Thank You,
Nitesh Shetty