Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 03/14] target/sbc: Add sbc_check_prot + update sbc_parse_cdb for DIF | From | "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <> | Date | Mon, 13 Jan 2014 11:23:02 -0800 |
| |
On Sun, 2014-01-12 at 13:59 +0200, Sagi Grimberg wrote: > 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:
<SNIP>
> >>> 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? >
Correct.
--nab
| |