On 2/28/2015 12:35 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
From: Nicholas Bellinger <nab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
This patch changes existing DIF emulation to check the command descriptor's
prot_type, instead of what the backend device is exposing in pi_prot_type.
Since this value is already set in sbc_check_prot(), go ahead and use it to
allow protected fabrics to function with unprotected devices.
Cc: Martin Petersen <martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Sagi Grimberg <sagig@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Nicholas Bellinger <nab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/target/target_core_sbc.c | 13 +++++++------
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/target/target_core_sbc.c b/drivers/target/target_core_sbc.c
index 9a2f9d3..95a7a74 100644
--- a/drivers/target/target_core_sbc.c
+++ b/drivers/target/target_core_sbc.c
@@ -1167,7 +1167,7 @@ sbc_dif_generate(struct se_cmd *cmd)
sdt = paddr + offset;
sdt->guard_tag = cpu_to_be16(crc_t10dif(daddr + j,
dev->dev_attrib.block_size));
- if (dev->dev_attrib.pi_prot_type == TARGET_DIF_TYPE1_PROT)
+ if (cmd->prot_type == TARGET_DIF_TYPE1_PROT)
sdt->ref_tag = cpu_to_be32(sector & 0xffffffff);
sdt->app_tag = 0;
@@ -1186,9 +1186,10 @@ sbc_dif_generate(struct se_cmd *cmd)
}
static sense_reason_t
-sbc_dif_v1_verify(struct se_device *dev, struct se_dif_v1_tuple *sdt,
+sbc_dif_v1_verify(struct se_cmd *cmd, struct se_dif_v1_tuple *sdt,
const void *p, sector_t sector, unsigned int ei_lba)
{
+ struct se_device *dev = cmd->se_dev;
int block_size = dev->dev_attrib.block_size;
__be16 csum;
@@ -1201,7 +1202,7 @@ sbc_dif_v1_verify(struct se_device *dev, struct se_dif_v1_tuple *sdt,
return TCM_LOGICAL_BLOCK_GUARD_CHECK_FAILED;
}
- if (dev->dev_attrib.pi_prot_type == TARGET_DIF_TYPE1_PROT &&
+ if (cmd->prot_type == TARGET_DIF_TYPE1_PROT &&
This reminds me, I wander if the dif verify needed checks should be
driven from the cmd->prot_type or from cmd->prot_checks (set at
sbc_set_prot_op_checks()). AFAICT, the protection type simply
determines the way we treat the tags. Although I guess the target is
allowed to check protection even if it wasn't requested to (for example
when the fabric is unprotected and the backend is protected...).
MKP?
Sagi.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe target-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
