linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] btrfs/ioctl: store btrfs_uring_encoded_data in io_btrfs

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: <CADUfDZppvPG9iZg6ED0ZUW_ms1EnNUJwwYyAJ7eCTWsJqa417w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2025 14:32:24 -0400
From: Caleb Sander Mateos <csander@...estorage.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>, David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, 
	Mark Harmstone <maharmstone@...com>, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, io-uring@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] btrfs/ioctl: store btrfs_uring_encoded_data in io_btrfs_cmd

On Tue, Jul 8, 2025 at 2:17 PM Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
>
> On 7/2/25 1:51 PM, Caleb Sander Mateos wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 3:06?PM Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
> >>
> >>> @@ -4811,11 +4813,15 @@ static int btrfs_uring_encoded_read(struct io_uring_cmd *cmd, unsigned int issue
> >>>       loff_t pos;
> >>>       struct kiocb kiocb;
> >>>       struct extent_state *cached_state = NULL;
> >>>       u64 start, lockend;
> >>>       void __user *sqe_addr;
> >>> -     struct btrfs_uring_encoded_data *data = io_uring_cmd_get_async_data(cmd)->op_data;
> >>> +     struct io_btrfs_cmd *bc = io_uring_cmd_to_pdu(cmd, struct io_btrfs_cmd);
> >>> +     struct btrfs_uring_encoded_data *data = NULL;
> >>> +
> >>> +     if (cmd->flags & IORING_URING_CMD_REISSUE)
> >>> +             data = bc->data;
> >>
> >> Can this be a btrfs io_btrfs_cmd specific flag? Doesn't seem like it
> >> would need to be io_uring wide.
> >
> > Maybe. But where are you thinking it would be stored? I don't think
> > io_uring_cmd's pdu field would work because it's not initialized
> > before the first call to ->uring_cmd(). That's the whole reason I
> > needed to add a flag to tell whether this was the first call to
> > ->uring_cmd() or a subsequent one.
> > I also put the flag in the uring_cmd layer because that's where
> > op_data was defined. Even though btrfs is the only current user of
> > op_data, it seems like it was intended as a generic mechanism that
> > other ->uring_cmd() implementations might want to use. It seems like
> > the same argument would apply to this flag.
> > Thoughts?
>
> It's probably fine as-is, it was just some quick reading of it.
>
> I'd like to stage this up so we can get it done for 6.17. Can you
> respind with the other minor comments addressed? And then we can attempt
> to work this out with the btrfs side.

Sure, I can definitely incorporate the refactoring suggestion. Will
try to resend the patch series today.

Best,
Caleb