From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (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 B4DF32F549C for ; Tue, 28 Apr 2026 16:36:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1777394172; cv=none; b=ALaC8zmm3zf54Ul+Mym79v/XgHHcVzdMCbwW7dcEBrvCQ7Wq4hF2sYnmfuw91s1Hnx1mn9uNNghKWwCaz7zeWhMO6KKvEMyBsRRk5y96fAplBEaE44LUjnfGgltwXk8C2My01QWP9j6mbPUBbwRluyaZ050x+6m9h1iaAwoxkSw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1777394172; c=relaxed/simple; bh=8un1OulDCk2ibQ4l6hGhMF4v4zYWxLDYerLvstBbjlk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=IsP7DukboOe6eZuXizEDktUUHAXOia5BWWHIiJwPyVd2+0+SgG1KalgMGRivO9Y/JYMHznkkFMy4GA7npGnj1cDXawrWxGydB1S8Q06lPvHGhnjSAfUgQet1QDoDE7yiHTu6cxQEXoh7fgn90CFb4QGH5aYjk36WuCgTC8bKkcI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=EJfkXf4Z; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="EJfkXf4Z" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1777394169; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=iS1wMNcjHCnwwgf8LmNR6VBXfgy2XtozkmQUrqdxWB8=; b=EJfkXf4ZJ6n7S/pk3MQKDOf60qy55fGV/9UDnbjO9ykaNnpGqhvIp3wGWhQBnb8+FzboEN gXSCp8xmscY64kdOlx+c62/KkREd1ww2gioMNB4wko6DPc8WlWW9OuT6OJ0+TKrXS5K/d9 nVcVGD3Y3x5t+UmHHEh02mzDyYFrt04= Received: from mx-prod-mc-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-35-165-154-97.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [35.165.154.97]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-255-BbEEHzahMVWaMvXxFUwhiw-1; Tue, 28 Apr 2026 12:36:06 -0400 X-MC-Unique: BbEEHzahMVWaMvXxFUwhiw-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: BbEEHzahMVWaMvXxFUwhiw_1777394164 Received: from mx-prod-int-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.4]) (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) by mx-prod-mc-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E3791800245; Tue, 28 Apr 2026 16:36:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bmarzins-01.fast.eng.rdu2.dc.redhat.com (bmarzins-01.fast.eng.rdu2.dc.redhat.com [10.6.23.12]) by mx-prod-int-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6D146300756E; Tue, 28 Apr 2026 16:36:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bmarzins-01.fast.eng.rdu2.dc.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bmarzins-01.fast.eng.rdu2.dc.redhat.com (8.18.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPS id 63SGa2RO2773691 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 28 Apr 2026 12:36:02 -0400 Received: (from bmarzins@localhost) by bmarzins-01.fast.eng.rdu2.dc.redhat.com (8.18.1/8.18.1/Submit) id 63SGa19r2773690; Tue, 28 Apr 2026 12:36:01 -0400 Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2026 12:36:01 -0400 From: Benjamin Marzinski To: Linlin Zhang Cc: linux-block@vger.kernel.org, ebiggers@kernel.org, mpatocka@redhat.com, gmazyland@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, adrianvovk@gmail.com, dm-devel@lists.linux.dev, quic_mdalam@quicinc.com, israelr@nvidia.com, hch@infradead.org, axboe@kernel.dk Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] dm-inlinecrypt: add target for inline block device encryption Message-ID: References: <20260410134031.2880675-1-linlin.zhang@oss.qualcomm.com> <20260410134031.2880675-3-linlin.zhang@oss.qualcomm.com> <6390db35-7f8e-4d00-9c1f-43d676007910@oss.qualcomm.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6390db35-7f8e-4d00-9c1f-43d676007910@oss.qualcomm.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.30.177.4 On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 05:20:07PM +0800, Linlin Zhang wrote: > > > On 4/28/2026 7:21 AM, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2026 at 01:23:27AM -0400, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 10, 2026 at 06:40:30AM -0700, Linlin Zhang wrote: > >>> From: Eric Biggers > >>> + /* > >>> + * Since we've added an encryption context to the bio and > >>> + * blk-crypto-fallback may be needed to process it, it's necessary to > >>> + * use the fallback-aware bio submission code rather than > >>> + * unconditionally returning DM_MAPIO_REMAPPED. > >>> + * > >>> + * To get the correct accounting for a dm target in the case where > >>> + * __blk_crypto_submit_bio() doesn't take ownership of the bio (returns > >>> + * true), call __blk_crypto_submit_bio() directly and return > >>> + * DM_MAPIO_REMAPPED in that case, rather than relying on > >>> + * blk_crypto_submit_bio() which calls submit_bio() in that case. > >>> + */ > >>> + if (__blk_crypto_submit_bio(bio)) > >> > >> This will still double account for fallback writes (which call > >> submit_bio() on the encrypted bios, and return DM_MAPIO_SUBMITTED here). > > > > Just to clarify, I'm talking about the vmstats accounting. The IO > > originally gets accounted by submit_bio() when the bio is submitted to > > the dm device. For actual inline encryption and fallback reads, dm will > > submit the bio to the underlying device using submit_bio_noacct() to > > avoid double-counting the IO. > > > > For fallback writes, __blk_crypto_submit_bio() will submit the encrypted > > bios to the underlying device with submit_bio(). This adds the IO > > sectors again, even though it's the same IO, only encrypted now. > > > Right, thanks for calling this out. > > For fallback writes, the IO is still double-counted. Given that this only > affects IO accounting in the blk-crypto fallback write slow-path and not > correctness, I think this is an acceptable tradeoff, and we can leave a > TODO to revisit the accounting once a better solution exists. > > Add the bellow to the annotate. > > /* > * TODO: blk-crypto fallback write slow-path currently double-accounts > * IO in vmstat, as encrypted bios are submitted via submit_bio(). > * This does not affect data correctness. Consider fixing this if > * a cleaner accounting model for derived bios is introduced. > */ > > Do you agree? You could add an extra argument, for instance "bool need_acct", to __blk_crypto_submit_bio(), and plumb it through to __blk_crypto_fallback_encrypt_bio(), where it could be used to choose between calling submit_bio() and and submit_bio_noacct(). We could even add a flag to cloned bios for stacked devices, that could be checked in submit_bio(), so we didn't need to have submit_bio_noacct(). But this is a pretty niche case with other solutions, so I'm not sure if it warrants adding more checks to submit_bio(). I do agree that people probably aren't using dm-inlinecrypt for devices where they don't actually have inline encryption capabilities, so it's not a major issue. What to you think, Mikulas? -Ben > > > > -Ben > > > >> > >> -Ben > >> > >>> + return DM_MAPIO_REMAPPED; > >>> + return DM_MAPIO_SUBMITTED; > >>> +} > >> > >