Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 3/3] xen/blk[front|back]: Enhance discardsupport with secure erasing support.

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk]

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:54:02AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 21:57 +0100, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > My later response to it should include it:
> > > http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2011-10/msg00652.html
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Further I wonder why you don't use the "reserved" field instead of
> > > > extending the structure at the end.
> > >
> > > <blinks> I completly missed it. That would definitly work as well.
> > >
> > > Let me redo it with that in mind.
> > 
> > I've posted the Xen hypervisor ABI one that thread above. The implementation
> > of that looks as follow:
> 
> Ian.
> 
> > 
> > commit ae33f998d66c5982af533bda25c2b6c4f863789f
> > Author: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date:   Mon Oct 10 10:58:40 2011 -0400
> > 
> >     xen/blk[front|back]: Enhance discard support with secure erasing support.
> > 
> >     Part of the blkdev_issue_discard(xx) operation is that it can also
> >     issue a secure discard operation that will permanantly remove the
> >     sectors in question. We advertise that we can support that via the
> >     'discard-secure' attribute and on the request, if the 'secure' bit
> >     is set, we will attempt to pass in REQ_DISCARD | REQ_SECURE.
> > 
> >     CC: Li Dongyang <lidongyang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >     [v1: Used 'flag' instead of 'secure:1' bit]
> >     [v2: Use 'reserved 'uint8_t' as a flag]
> >     Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c
> > index 94e659d..4f33c13 100644
> > --- a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c
> > +++ b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c
> > @@ -362,7 +362,7 @@ static int xen_blkbk_map(struct blkif_request *req,
> >  {
> >         struct gnttab_map_grant_ref map[BLKIF_MAX_SEGMENTS_PER_REQUEST];
> >         int i;
> > -       int nseg = req->nr_segments;
> > +       int nseg = req->u1.nr_segments;
> >         int ret = 0;
> > 
> >         /*
> > @@ -422,13 +422,16 @@ static void xen_blk_discard(struct xen_blkif *blkif, struct blkif_request *req)
> >         int status = BLKIF_RSP_OKAY;
> >         struct block_device *bdev = blkif->vbd.bdev;
> > 
> > -       if (blkif->blk_backend_type == BLKIF_BACKEND_PHY)
> > +       if (blkif->blk_backend_type == BLKIF_BACKEND_PHY) {
> > +               unsigned long secure = (blkif->vbd.discard_secure &&
> > +                       (req->u1.flag & BLKIF_OP_DISCARD_FLAG_SECURE)) ?
> > +                       BLKDEV_DISCARD_SECURE : 0;
> >                 /* just forward the discard request */
> >                 err = blkdev_issue_discard(bdev,
> >                                 req->u.discard.sector_number,
> >                                 req->u.discard.nr_sectors,
> > -                               GFP_KERNEL, 0);
> > -       else if (blkif->blk_backend_type == BLKIF_BACKEND_FILE) {
> > +                               GFP_KERNEL, secure);
> > +       } else if (blkif->blk_backend_type == BLKIF_BACKEND_FILE) {
> >                 /* punch a hole in the backing file */
> >                 struct loop_device *lo = bdev->bd_disk->private_data;
> >                 struct file *file = lo->lo_backing_file;
> > @@ -618,6 +621,9 @@ static int dispatch_rw_block_io(struct xen_blkif *blkif,
> >         struct blk_plug plug;
> >         bool drain = false;
> > 
> > +       /* Check that the number of segments is sane. */
> > +       nseg = req->u1.nr_segments;
> 
> This field is invalid (at least with these semantics) if req->operation
> == BLKIF_OP_DISCARD so reading it here and clearing it later when you
> decide it is invalid is just confusing. Why not read it inside the
> switch iff it is valid?

The problem was that 'nseg' would be read after the switch, so it would
contain the flag value. Which would throw off a lot of the loops which
would try to enumerate "(for (i = 0; i < nseg;...)".


Hence moving it to the top would make it valid for all the operations
except the BLKIF_OP_DISCARD. And BLKIF_OP_DISCARD would sensibly set it
nseg to zero so that we would not trip on those 'for (i = 0').

But I think you idea of making it an if statement would do, like:


> > @@ -643,8 +650,6 @@ static int dispatch_rw_block_io(struct xen_blkif *blkif,
> >                 break;
> >         }
> > 
            if (operation != REQ_DISCARD)
              /* Check that the number of segments is sane. */
         	nseg = req->nr_segments;
	    else
		nseg = 0;

> >         if (unlikely(nseg == 0 && operation != WRITE_FLUSH &&
> >                                 operation != REQ_DISCARD) ||

And I guess we can also skip the REQ_DISCARD test here.

> >             unlikely(nseg > BLKIF_MAX_SEGMENTS_PER_REQUEST)) {

.. snip..
> handle isn't really only r/w, is it? If it is then I think we should
> just repeat the id fields within the union and pad so the offset is
> correct:
> 
> struct blkif_request {
>     uint8_t        operation;    /* BLKIF_OP_???                         */
>     union {
> 	struct {
> 	    uint8_t        nr_segments;  /* number of segments                   */
> 	    blkif_vdev_t   handle;
> 	    uint64_t       id;           /* private guest value, echoed in resp  */
> 	    blkif_sector_t sector_number;/* start sector idx on disk (r/w only)  */
> 	    struct blkif_request_segment seg[BLKIF_MAX_SEGMENTS_PER_REQUEST];
> 	} rw;
> 	struct {
> 	    uint8_t        flags;
> 	    blkif_vdev_t   __pad;       /* was "handle: only for read/write requests */
> 	    uint64_t       id;           /* private guest value, echoed in resp  */
            blkif_sector_t sectore_number;
	    uint64_t nr_sectors;
> 	} discard;

I like that. So much easier to comprehend. Let me spin up a patch for that.
--
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/