Re: [PATCH] target: Add netlink command reply supported option for each device

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 09/13/2017 10:10 AM, Bryant G. Ly wrote:
> 
> On 9/13/17 12:01 AM, Kenjiro Nakayama wrote:
> 
>> Currently netlink command reply support option
>> (TCMU_ATTR_SUPP_KERN_CMD_REPLY) can be enabled only on module
>> scope. Because of that, once an application enables the netlink
>> command reply support, all applications using target_core_user.ko
>> would be expected to support the netlink reply. To make matters worse,
>> users will not be able to add a device via configfs manually.
>>
>> To fix these issues, this patch adds an option to make netlink command
>> reply disabled on each device through configfs. Original
>> TCMU_ATTR_SUPP_KERN_CMD_REPLY is still enabled on module scope to keep
>> backward-compatibility and used by default, however once users set
>> nl_reply_supported=<NAGATIVE_VALUE> via configfs for a particular
>> device, the device disables the netlink command reply support.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kenjiro Nakayama <nakayamakenjiro@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>   drivers/target/target_core_user.c | 59
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>   1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/target/target_core_user.c
>> b/drivers/target/target_core_user.c
>> index 942d094269fb..709c27ed4206 100644
>> --- a/drivers/target/target_core_user.c
>> +++ b/drivers/target/target_core_user.c
>> @@ -150,6 +150,8 @@ struct tcmu_dev {
>>       wait_queue_head_t nl_cmd_wq;
>>
>>       char dev_config[TCMU_CONFIG_LEN];
>> +
>> +    int nl_reply_supported;
>>   };
>>
>>   #define TCMU_DEV(_se_dev) container_of(_se_dev, struct tcmu_dev,
>> se_dev)
>> @@ -1306,6 +1308,10 @@ static void tcmu_init_genl_cmd_reply(struct
>> tcmu_dev *udev, int cmd)
>>
>>       if (!tcmu_kern_cmd_reply_supported)
>>           return;
>> +
>> +    if (udev->nl_reply_supported <= 0)
>> +        return;
>> +
>>   relock:
>>       spin_lock(&udev->nl_cmd_lock);
>>
>> @@ -1332,6 +1338,9 @@ static int tcmu_wait_genl_cmd_reply(struct
>> tcmu_dev *udev)
>>       if (!tcmu_kern_cmd_reply_supported)
>>           return 0;
>>
>> +    if (udev->nl_reply_supported <= 0)
>> +        return 0;
>> +
>>       pr_debug("sleeping for nl reply\n");
>>       wait_for_completion(&nl_cmd->complete);
>>
>> @@ -1506,6 +1515,12 @@ static int tcmu_configure_device(struct
>> se_device *dev)
>>           dev->dev_attrib.emulate_write_cache = 0;
>>       dev->dev_attrib.hw_queue_depth = 128;
>>
>> +    /* If user didn't explicitly disable netlink reply support, use
>> +     * module scope setting.
>> +     */
>> +    if (udev->nl_reply_supported >= 0)
>> +        udev->nl_reply_supported = tcmu_kern_cmd_reply_supported;
>> +
>>       /*
>>        * Get a ref incase userspace does a close on the uio device before
>>        * LIO has initiated tcmu_free_device.
>> @@ -1610,7 +1625,7 @@ static void tcmu_destroy_device(struct se_device
>> *dev)
>>
>>   enum {
>>       Opt_dev_config, Opt_dev_size, Opt_hw_block_size,
>> Opt_hw_max_sectors,
>> -    Opt_err,
>> +    Opt_nl_reply_supported, Opt_err,
>>   };
>>
>>   static match_table_t tokens = {
>> @@ -1618,6 +1633,7 @@ static match_table_t tokens = {
>>       {Opt_dev_size, "dev_size=%u"},
>>       {Opt_hw_block_size, "hw_block_size=%u"},
>>       {Opt_hw_max_sectors, "hw_max_sectors=%u"},
>> +    {Opt_nl_reply_supported, "nl_reply_supported=%d"},
>>       {Opt_err, NULL}
>>   };
>>
>> @@ -1692,6 +1708,18 @@ static ssize_t
>> tcmu_set_configfs_dev_params(struct se_device *dev,
>>               ret = tcmu_set_dev_attrib(&args[0],
>>                       &(dev->dev_attrib.hw_max_sectors));
>>               break;
>> +        case Opt_nl_reply_supported:
>> +            arg_p = match_strdup(&args[0]);
>> +            if (!arg_p) {
>> +                ret = -ENOMEM;
>> +                break;
>> +            }
>> +            ret = kstrtol(arg_p, 0,
>> +                    (long int *) &udev->nl_reply_supported);
>> +            kfree(arg_p);
>> +            if (ret < 0)
>> +                pr_err("kstrtoul() failed for nl_reply_supported=\n");
>> +            break;
>>           default:
>>               break;
>>           }
>> @@ -1842,6 +1870,34 @@ static ssize_t tcmu_dev_size_store(struct
>> config_item *item, const char *page,
>>   }
>>   CONFIGFS_ATTR(tcmu_, dev_size);
>>
>> +static ssize_t tcmu_nl_reply_supported_show(struct config_item *item,
>> +        char *page)
>> +{
>> +    struct se_dev_attrib *da = container_of(to_config_group(item),
>> +                        struct se_dev_attrib, da_group);
>> +    struct tcmu_dev *udev = TCMU_DEV(da->da_dev);
>> +
>> +    return snprintf(page, PAGE_SIZE, "%d\n", udev->nl_reply_supported);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static ssize_t tcmu_nl_reply_supported_store(struct config_item *item,
>> +        const char *page, size_t count)
>> +{
>> +    struct se_dev_attrib *da = container_of(to_config_group(item),
>> +                        struct se_dev_attrib, da_group);
>> +    struct tcmu_dev *udev = TCMU_DEV(da->da_dev);
>> +    s8 val;
>> +    int ret;
>> +
>> +    ret = kstrtos8(page, 0, &val);
>> +    if (ret < 0)
>> +        return ret;
>> +
>> +    udev->nl_reply_supported = val;
>> +    return count;
>> +}
>> +CONFIGFS_ATTR(tcmu_, nl_reply_supported);
>> +
>>   static ssize_t tcmu_emulate_write_cache_show(struct config_item *item,
>>                            char *page)
>>   {
>> @@ -1884,6 +1940,7 @@ static struct configfs_attribute
>> *tcmu_attrib_attrs[] = {
>>       &tcmu_attr_dev_config,
>>       &tcmu_attr_dev_size,
>>       &tcmu_attr_emulate_write_cache,
>> +    &tcmu_attr_nl_reply_supported,
>>       NULL,
>>   };
>>
> 
> The problem with this patch is that for tcmu-runner/targetcli-fb users
> the code will depend
> on the genl_info structure that contains whether or not a netlink reply
> is supported. You will
> need to fix that path where if you were to update the configfs to
> disable netlink reply and if a user
> already has stuff setup then things will get messy. Userspace will think
> netlink reply is supported,
> but kernel doesn't expect one.
> 

I don't think this will be a problem, because the patch has backwards
compat support and the app that does not support nl replies will only
set the nl_reply_support = -1 for the devices it is managing.

If userspace were to mess up and set nl_reply_suppport = -1 for a device
it did not manage and so a reply is sent when the kernel did not expect
one, the kernel should just spit out an error due to not being able to
find a device or cmd mismatch, or we might do a complete() with no
waiters, or for device removal we might hit the uio crash again.
--
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



[Index of Archives]     [Linux SCSI]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Linux IIO]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux