From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 003.mia.mailroute.net (003.mia.mailroute.net [199.89.3.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6038F1F94A; Mon, 23 Jun 2025 15:31:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.3.6 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750692713; cv=none; b=m2T+NN2H5z66fnFEnZ401ZVWmz3kSZeIyiEpiZyjAa1JY5AJ6RzfdpCTIW4ILeVwnrsK9W+E9wTVupNxLwtdiA1dPzVJM0H0vRVczH/Fa/gYmamAVHKWxV8yc00Y+qvhFRKsCh09gjILTNmoVRYTR3PnEme3FGOAoUBUrHAmmPk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750692713; c=relaxed/simple; bh=G6wrqc9lN2Z5Thmk3+XuaIFvHY2mEtO+5WPLfjlHn8w=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=s34W6UJQUrslbT9sIK8qYn+Q3w3VgLxaWQl/gAt4/WMOydF1R48l6PnzPG0e6lulbywwypusPKhfmhi9oYCN1IpMPKIEhYIYyfNjeIJHF3p2Why/DlFRZ0dlAxKU6BjlZy9Ap0PRl2sc1hF6P8szDRQes27fVI+wo6pcROc5zGM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=acm.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.b=eZL+NQZG; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.3.6 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.b="eZL+NQZG" Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by 003.mia.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4bQsWW2v7TzlgqVb; Mon, 23 Jun 2025 15:31:51 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=acm.org; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:in-reply-to :from:from:content-language:references:subject:subject :user-agent:mime-version:date:date:message-id:received:received; s=mr01; t=1750692709; x=1753284710; bh=LUZ0qEHJJTDt+6aIIR3vZylC zvIVqJUC6YYRJKPqtSM=; b=eZL+NQZGZLsNiCK2wIV4/2FRBKRTCcqq4hr38jhb hig3Bu82/hSmX0cfUVv4LEle0upeK3RVUw5x28RB355aJ/9uzz20RFWmrkwWVXXA FrI5i8VTlfTW8BkN2c1FWgr9FsehDWIHoIXYt+xld1bjdJfwVTdbWtTb1RbjKHAT X1zdJXvPihAlyKKNvOMKntdhpfqR/M4tNaJFUMe2R7RACJHyEDn8/ZMmra0uuXGs 39Y23hW2Czpa/DbYjFCOqXopQiVh4RjEU5UqjPQXGkU33pZIpKtAddJjGIfm1A/2 ZiSpkK2oPXtSIBGmI1G2BV+fnOq9JEFRbfIhRS3zZUedZA== X-Virus-Scanned: by MailRoute Received: from 003.mia.mailroute.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (003.mia [127.0.0.1]) (mroute_mailscanner, port 10029) with LMTP id qfbmONVdDI45; Mon, 23 Jun 2025 15:31:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [100.66.154.22] (unknown [104.135.204.82]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: bvanassche@acm.org) by 003.mia.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4bQsWH1z25zlgqVY; Mon, 23 Jun 2025 15:31:38 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <8eae59ce-1d46-4c9c-af6f-0f6bb39a8286@acm.org> Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2025 08:31:37 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] RDMA/srp: don't set a max_segment_size when virt_boundary_mask is set To: Christoph Hellwig , "Martin K. Petersen" Cc: Ming Lei , "K. Y. Srinivasan" , Haiyang Zhang , Wei Liu , "Ewan D. Milne" , Laurence Oberman , linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org References: <20250623080326.48714-1-hch@lst.de> <20250623080326.48714-2-hch@lst.de> Content-Language: en-US From: Bart Van Assche In-Reply-To: <20250623080326.48714-2-hch@lst.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 6/23/25 1:02 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > virt_boundary_mask implies an unlimited max_segment_size. Setting both > can lead to data corruption, and we're going to check for this in the > SCSI midlayer soon. Please make this patch description more detailed and mention that __blk_rq_map_sg() may split sg-lists such that the virt_boundary_mask is not respected if max_segment_size != UINT_MAX. Thanks, Bart.