Re: [PATCH v6.15 2/3] ublk: decouple zero copy from user copy

[Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>]

On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 09:01:04AM -0700, Caleb Sander Mateos wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2025 at 6:49 AM Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > UBLK_F_USER_COPY and UBLK_F_SUPPORT_ZERO_COPY are two different
> > features, and shouldn't be coupled together.
> >
> > Commit 1f6540e2aabb ("ublk: zc register/unregister bvec") enables
> > user copy automatically in case of UBLK_F_SUPPORT_ZERO_COPY, this way
> > isn't correct.
> >
> > So decouple zero copy from user copy, and use independent helper to
> > check each one.
> 
> I agree this makes sense.
> 
> >
> > Fixes: 1f6540e2aabb ("ublk: zc register/unregister bvec")
> > Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/block/ublk_drv.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> >  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/block/ublk_drv.c b/drivers/block/ublk_drv.c
> > index 40f971a66d3e..0a3a3c64316d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/block/ublk_drv.c
> > +++ b/drivers/block/ublk_drv.c
> > @@ -205,11 +205,6 @@ static inline struct request *__ublk_check_and_get_req(struct ublk_device *ub,
> >  static inline unsigned int ublk_req_build_flags(struct request *req);
> >  static inline struct ublksrv_io_desc *ublk_get_iod(struct ublk_queue *ubq,
> >                                                    int tag);
> > -static inline bool ublk_dev_is_user_copy(const struct ublk_device *ub)
> > -{
> > -       return ub->dev_info.flags & (UBLK_F_USER_COPY | UBLK_F_SUPPORT_ZERO_COPY);
> > -}
> > -
> >  static inline bool ublk_dev_is_zoned(const struct ublk_device *ub)
> >  {
> >         return ub->dev_info.flags & UBLK_F_ZONED;
> > @@ -609,14 +604,19 @@ static void ublk_apply_params(struct ublk_device *ub)
> >                 ublk_dev_param_zoned_apply(ub);
> >  }
> >
> > +static inline bool ublk_support_zero_copy(const struct ublk_queue *ubq)
> > +{
> > +       return ubq->flags & UBLK_F_SUPPORT_ZERO_COPY;
> > +}
> > +
> >  static inline bool ublk_support_user_copy(const struct ublk_queue *ubq)
> >  {
> > -       return ubq->flags & (UBLK_F_USER_COPY | UBLK_F_SUPPORT_ZERO_COPY);
> > +       return ubq->flags & UBLK_F_USER_COPY;
> >  }
> >
> >  static inline bool ublk_need_map_io(const struct ublk_queue *ubq)
> >  {
> > -       return !ublk_support_user_copy(ubq);
> > +       return !ublk_support_user_copy(ubq) && !ublk_support_zero_copy(ubq);
> >  }
> >
> >  static inline bool ublk_need_req_ref(const struct ublk_queue *ubq)
> > @@ -624,8 +624,11 @@ static inline bool ublk_need_req_ref(const struct ublk_queue *ubq)
> >         /*
> >          * read()/write() is involved in user copy, so request reference
> >          * has to be grabbed
> > +        *
> > +        * for zero copy, request buffer need to be registered to io_uring
> > +        * buffer table, so reference is needed
> >          */
> > -       return ublk_support_user_copy(ubq);
> > +       return ublk_support_user_copy(ubq) || ublk_support_zero_copy(ubq);
> >  }
> >
> >  static inline void ublk_init_req_ref(const struct ublk_queue *ubq,
> > @@ -2245,6 +2248,9 @@ static struct request *ublk_check_and_get_req(struct kiocb *iocb,
> >         if (!ubq)
> >                 return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> >
> > +       if (!ublk_support_user_copy(ubq))
> > +               return ERR_PTR(-EACCES);
> 
> This partly overlaps with the existing ublk_need_req_ref() check in
> __ublk_check_and_get_req() (although that allows
> UBLK_F_SUPPORT_ZERO_COPY too). Can that check be removed now that the
> callers explicitly check ublk_support_user_copy() or
> ublk_support_zero_copy()?

Yeah, it can be removed.


Thanks, 
Ming