Re: [PATCH 03/14] target/sbc: Add sbc_check_prot + update sbc_parse_cdbfor DIF

[Sagi Grimberg]

On 1/10/2014 9:04 AM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 16:58 +0200, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
> > On 1/8/2014 10:36 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > > From: Nicholas Bellinger <nab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > This patch adds sbc_check_prot() for performing various DIF
> > > related CDB sanity checks, along with setting SCF_PROT once
> > > sanity checks have passed.
> > >
> > > Also, add calls in sbc_parse_cdb() for READ_[10,12,16] +
> > > WRITE_[10,12,16] to perform DIF sanity checking.
> > >
> > > Cc: Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Hannes Reinecke <hare@xxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Sagi Grimberg <sagig@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Bellinger <nab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >    drivers/target/target_core_sbc.c |   39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >    1 file changed, 39 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/target/target_core_sbc.c b/drivers/target/target_core_sbc.c
> > > index 52ae54e..600ffcb 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/target/target_core_sbc.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/target/target_core_sbc.c
> > > @@ -563,6 +563,27 @@ sbc_compare_and_write(struct se_cmd *cmd)
> > >    	return TCM_NO_SENSE;
> > >    }
> > >    
> > > +bool
> > > +sbc_check_prot(struct se_device *dev, struct se_cmd *cmd, unsigned char *cdb)
> > > +{
> > > +	if (!dev->dev_attrib.pi_prot_type)
> > > +		return true;
> > > +
> > > +	if (dev->dev_attrib.pi_prot_type == TARGET_DIF_TYPE2_PROT &&
> > > +	   (cdb[1] & 0xe0))
> > > +		return false;
> > > +
> > > +	if (!(cdb[1] & 0xe0)) {
> > > +		pr_warn("Target: Unprotected READ/WRITE to DIF device\n");
> > > +		return true;
> > > +	}
> > > +	if (!cmd->t_prot_sg || !cmd->t_prot_nents)
> > > +		return true;
> > > +
> > > +	cmd->se_cmd_flags |= SCF_PROT;
> > Isn't this the place to fill the se_cmd DIF execution parameters?
> > prot_op, prot_type, guard_type, initial_reftag, apptag etc...
> > Next, all parties interested in DIF execution should look in se_cmd
> > (backstore, transport).
> Yes, working on this for -v2 as well.  :)

OK, so just to be clear, both the transport and the backstore will be 
look in se_cmd protection attributes when executing IO correct?

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/