From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-20.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74BDBC4320A for ; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 22:00:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 593B6601FA for ; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 22:00:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232447AbhHPWBK (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Aug 2021 18:01:10 -0400 Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de ([195.135.220.28]:54250 "EHLO smtp-out1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232067AbhHPWBJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Aug 2021 18:01:09 -0400 Received: from imap1.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap1.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.73]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A881B21F27; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 22:00:36 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1629151236; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=/Vxbun15x51wYaRLadmm9SobnNAu7hXYmM21vcMA3us=; b=gO0btI5CHcpIUeepD3I9S9fQTPgZEdjfPBJxX43GxbbbNZi/wo02chgpSUCc1a4XRDYxaD jaext7ygWu7W6+eIPVwUa1p0MiZ8l3iGg5BZw1qvMcUoMVuxduPnhEGSKCGkI/o3WdJ9Vw hRLy3QjFU+ih1qrMmgEjmzYa85iA8Fs= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1629151236; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=/Vxbun15x51wYaRLadmm9SobnNAu7hXYmM21vcMA3us=; b=adlpBXKNVNylqqVpfqF+rV0Ho8T10p+RSrFAt9g0FVIomYwuGDxmXiaYr4ixFRkFBTcGB7 /VGzXh6tDxaQKLAA== Received: from imap1.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap1.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.73]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4139813B95; Mon, 16 Aug 2021 22:00:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap1.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id JzPWDQTgGmF+GQAAGKfGzw (envelope-from ); Mon, 16 Aug 2021 22:00:36 +0000 Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2021 00:00:35 +0200 From: David Disseldorp To: Roman Bolshakov Cc: Sergey Samoylenko , , , , , , , Konstantin Shelekhin , Dmitry Bogdanov , Anastasia Kovaleva Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] scsi: target: core: Add 8Fh VPD page Message-ID: <20210817000035.7a514c50@suse.de> In-Reply-To: References: <20210729201943.40222-1-s.samoylenko@yadro.com> <20210729201943.40222-2-s.samoylenko@yadro.com> <20210813165255.650257ce@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 21:13:59 +0300, Roman Bolshakov wrote: > On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 04:52:55PM +0200, David Disseldorp wrote: > > Hi Sergey, > > > > On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 23:19:43 +0300, Sergey Samoylenko wrote: > > > > > The 8Fh VPD page announces the capabilities supported by > > > the TCM XCOPY manager. It helps to expand the coverage of > > > the third-party copy manager with SCSI testing utilities. > > > > Please list which initiators use this VPD page, if you know of any. > > Also, is there any test coverage for this? I don't see anything in > > libiscsi... > > > > Hi David, > > ESXi is one of the hosts that inspects Third Party Copy VPD Page. > Windows detects ODX support using the page [1][2]. Thanks for the links. I haven't seen ESXi attempt to use it, but also haven't checked for some time. It'd be good to get some of this information in the commit message. > The page is also used by libiscsi to detect presence and features of > copy manager as was agreed with Bart in the PR [3]: I'm probably missing something, but why wasn't the 3PC flag in the standard inquiry page an option for this check? > "Implementing REPORT SUPPORTED OPERATION CODES in LIO would require more > work than implementing the third-party copy VPD page. > > I'm fine with relying on the third-party copy VPD page, or in other > words, to skip the copy offloading tests if that page is not supported. > > There are plans to implement XCOPY support in the Linux kernel sd > driver. If nobody else volunteers I plan to work on this myself. I'm > considering to only support SCSI targets that support the third-party > copy VPD page. Or in other words, we will need support for that VPD page > anyway." Okay, fair enough. > > 1. https://www.slideshare.net/CalvinChen5/a-joint-effort-of-the-storage-industry > 2. http://sg.danny.cz/sg/ddpt_xcopy_odx.html > 3. https://github.com/sahlberg/libiscsi/pull/353 > > > > Reviewed-by: Konstantin Shelekhin > > > Reviewed-by: Dmitry Bogdanov > > > Reviewed-by: Anastasia Kovaleva > > > Signed-off-by: Sergey Samoylenko > > > --- > > > drivers/target/target_core_spc.c | 230 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > > > 1 file changed, 226 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/target/target_core_spc.c b/drivers/target/target_core_spc.c > > > index 22703a0dbd07..169341712b10 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/target/target_core_spc.c > > > +++ b/drivers/target/target_core_spc.c > > ... > > > +/* Third-party Copy VPD page */ > > > +static sense_reason_t > > > +spc_emulate_evpd_8f(struct se_cmd *cmd, unsigned char *buf) > > > +{ > > > + struct se_device *dev = cmd->se_dev; > > > + int off; > > > + u16 page_len; > > > + > > > + if (!dev->dev_attrib.emulate_3pc) > > > + return TCM_INVALID_CDB_FIELD; > > > + > > > + /* > > > + * Since the Third-party copy manager in TCM is quite simple > > > + * and supports only two commands, the function sets > > > + * many descriptor parameters as constants. > > > + * > > > + * As the Copy manager supports the EXTENDED COPY(LID1) command, > > > + * the Third-party Copy VPD page should include five mandatory > > > + * Third-party copy descriptors. Its are: > > > + * 0001h - Supported Commands > > > + * 0004h - Parameter Data > > > + * 0008h - Supported Descriptors > > > + * 000Ch - Supported CSCD Descriptor IDs > > > + * 8001h - General Copy Operations > > > + * > > > + * See spc4 section 7.8.17 > > > + */ > > > + > > > + off = 4; > > > + > > > + /* fill descriptors */ > > > + off += spc_evpd_8f_encode_supp_cmds(&buf[off]); > > > + off += spc_evpd_8f_encode_param_data(&buf[off]); > > > + off += spc_evpd_8f_encode_supp_descrs(&buf[off]); > > > + off += spc_evpd_8f_encode_supp_cscd_descr_id(&buf[off]); > > > + off += spc_evpd_8f_encode_general_copy_ops(&buf[off]); > > > > This looks risky in terms of buf overrun. I think it'd be good to pass > > a @remaining or @buf_end param to these helper functions. > > > > It's doable but would require to change the signature of all existing > VPD handlers. SE_INQUIRY_BUF is hardcoded to 1kb but it's also capped by > EDTL to avoid buffer overruns: > > memcpy(rbuf, buf, min_t(u32, SE_INQUIRY_BUF, cmd->data_length)); That's checking the amount copied into the response buffer. My concern is the prior writes to the staging buf. Cheers, David