Re: [PATCH v2] virtio_blk: add SECURE ERASE command support

From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
To: Alvaro Karsz <alvaro.karsz@solid-run.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
	virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] virtio_blk: add SECURE ERASE command support
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 14:11:40 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YyoCXOwRE7NLxTTH@fedora> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJs=3_ASjr0DF9MTvS=P-ZeJpC4nAH+2vkTjWROzQbS+mvLU4Q@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1018 bytes --]

On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 09:09:05PM +0300, Alvaro Karsz wrote:
> Thanks for the reply.
> 
> > This can be simplified with min_not_zero().
> 
> Ok, I will do it in the next version.
> 
> > It's worth including a comment here that the discard and secure erase
> > limits are combined because the Linux block layer only has one limit
> > value. If the block layer supported independent limit values we wouldn't
> > need to do this.
> 
> Ok.
> 
> I'll send a new version once we agree on the max_secure_erase_seg = 0 scenario.
> Do you have an opinion on that?
> Do you think that using sg_elems as the number of secure erase/discard
> segments when the value in the virtio config is 0 is good enough?
> 

Okay, I have replied in the max_secure_erase_seg sub-thread. I think
probing the device should fail if the value is 0. There are no existing
non-compliant devices that we need to be compatible with - let's
encourage device implementors to report usable max_secure_erase_seg
values.

Stefan

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 183 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization