From: Benjamin Block <bblock@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] bsg: split handling of SCSI CDBs vs transport requeues
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 18:47:27 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171020164727.GA26380@bblock-ThinkPad-W530> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171020162630.GA14277@lst.de>
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 06:26:30PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 05:59:33PM +0200, Benjamin Block wrote:
> > > +#define ptr64(val) ((void __user *)(uintptr_t)(val))
> >
> > Better to reflect the special property, that it is a user pointer, in
> > the name of the macro. Maybe something like user_ptr(64). The same
> > comment for the same macro in bsg.c.
>
> Not sure it's worth it especially now that Martin has merged the patch.
He did? I only saw a mail that he picked patches 2-5. So all the bsg
changes are still open I think.
(Maybe I just missed that, I haven't exactly followed the list very
closely as of late)
> But given how many interface we have all over the kernel that use a u64
> to store a user pointer in ioctls and similar it might make sense to
> lift a helper like this to a generic header. In that case we'll need
> a more descriptive name for sure.
>
> > > +static int bsg_transport_check_proto(struct sg_io_v4 *hdr)
> > > +{
> > > + if (hdr->protocol != BSG_PROTOCOL_SCSI ||
> > > + hdr->subprotocol != BSG_SUB_PROTOCOL_SCSI_TRANSPORT)
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > + if (!capable(CAP_SYS_RAWIO))
> > > + return -EPERM;
> >
> > Any particular reason why this is not symmetric with bsg_scsi? IOW
> > permission checking done in bsg_transport_fill_hdr(), like it is done in
> > bsg_scsi_fill_hdr()?
> >
> > We might save some time copying memory with this (we also only talk
> > about ~20 bytes here), but on the other hand the interface would be more
> > clean otherwise IMO (if we already do restructure the interface) -
> > similar callbacks have similar responsibilities.
>
> I could move the capable check around, no sure why I had done it that
> way, it's been a while. Probably because blk_verify_command needs the
> CDB while a simple capable() check does not.
That was my guess, too. I just though it would be more consistent otherwise.
Its not a big thing, really.
Beste Grüße / Best regards,
- Benjamin Block
--
Linux on z Systems Development / IBM Systems & Technology Group
IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH
Vorsitz. AufsR.: Martina Koederitz / Geschäftsführung: Dirk Wittkopp
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen / Registergericht: AmtsG Stuttgart, HRB 243294
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-10-20 16:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-10-03 10:48 [RFC] bsg-lib interface cleanup Christoph Hellwig
2017-10-03 10:48 ` [PATCH 1/9] bsg-lib: fix use-after-free under memory-pressure Christoph Hellwig
2017-10-04 6:16 ` Hannes Reinecke
2017-10-04 8:54 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2017-10-03 10:48 ` [PATCH 2/9] bfa: don't reset max_segments for every bsg request Christoph Hellwig
2017-10-04 6:16 ` Hannes Reinecke
2017-10-04 8:54 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2017-10-03 10:48 ` [PATCH 3/9] libfc: don't assign resid_len in fc_lport_bsg_request Christoph Hellwig
2017-10-04 6:17 ` Hannes Reinecke
2017-10-04 8:54 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2017-10-03 10:48 ` [PATCH 4/9] qla2xxx: don't break the bsg-lib abstractions Christoph Hellwig
2017-10-04 6:20 ` Hannes Reinecke
2017-10-04 8:54 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2017-10-05 16:58 ` Madhani, Himanshu
2017-10-03 10:48 ` [PATCH 5/9] scsi_transport_sas: check reply payload length instead of bidi request Christoph Hellwig
2017-10-04 6:21 ` Hannes Reinecke
2017-10-04 8:53 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2017-10-03 10:48 ` [PATCH 6/9] bsg-lib: introduce a timeout field in struct bsg_job Christoph Hellwig
2017-10-04 6:21 ` Hannes Reinecke
2017-10-04 8:53 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2017-10-16 16:30 ` Benjamin Block
2017-10-03 10:48 ` [PATCH 7/9] bsg-lib: remove bsg_job.req Christoph Hellwig
2017-10-04 6:22 ` Hannes Reinecke
2017-10-04 8:52 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2017-10-16 16:36 ` Benjamin Block
2017-10-03 10:48 ` [PATCH 8/9] block: pass full fmode_t to blk_verify_command Christoph Hellwig
2017-10-04 6:23 ` Hannes Reinecke
2017-10-04 8:52 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2017-10-16 16:50 ` Benjamin Block
2017-10-03 10:48 ` [PATCH 9/9] bsg: split handling of SCSI CDBs vs transport requeues Christoph Hellwig
2017-10-04 6:26 ` Hannes Reinecke
2017-10-04 7:18 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2017-10-04 7:20 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-10-04 8:52 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2017-10-04 7:18 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2017-10-19 15:59 ` Benjamin Block
2017-10-20 16:26 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-10-20 16:47 ` Benjamin Block [this message]
2017-10-23 6:16 ` Martin K. Petersen
2017-10-23 6:29 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-10-23 7:17 ` Martin K. Petersen
2017-10-24 17:46 ` Jens Axboe
2017-10-24 16:58 ` Benjamin Block
2017-10-04 14:35 ` [RFC] bsg-lib interface cleanup Jens Axboe
2017-10-17 3:50 ` Martin K. Petersen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20171020164727.GA26380@bblock-ThinkPad-W530 \
--to=bblock@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jthumshirn@suse.de \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).