Re: [PATCH v4 7/9] dm: handle error from blk_ksm_register()
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
Date: 2021-07-23 17:26:52
Also in:
lkml
On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 10:29:41PM -0700, Satya Tangirala wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
From: Satya Tangirala <redacted> Handle any error from blk_ksm_register() in the callers. Previously, the callers ignored the return value because blk_ksm_register() wouldn't fail as long as the request_queue didn't have integrity support too, but as this is no longer the case, it's safer for the callers to just handle the return value appropriately. Signed-off-by: Satya Tangirala <redacted> --- drivers/md/dm-table.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-table.c b/drivers/md/dm-table.c index 29cbfc3e3c4b..c79c0fbe80dd 100644 --- a/drivers/md/dm-table.c +++ b/drivers/md/dm-table.c@@ -1343,6 +1343,20 @@ static int dm_table_construct_keyslot_manager(struct dm_table *t) */ t->ksm = ksm; + /* + * At this point, t->ksm is either NULL or *not* empty (i.e. will support + * at least 1 crypto capability), the request queue doesn't support + * integrity, and it also satisfies all the block layer constraints + * "sufficiently" (as in the constraints of the DM device's request queue + * won't preclude any of the intersection of the supported capabilities + * of the underlying devices, since if some capability were precluded by + * the DM device's request queue's constraints, that capability would + * also have been precluded by one of the child device's request queues). + * + * Hence any future attempt to call blk_ksm_register() on t->ksm (if it's + * not NULL) will succeed. + */ + return 0;
I don't think this properly answers the question I had on the previous version of this patch, which was not just how we know that blk_ksm_register() will succeed later, but also how we know that the blk_ksm_is_superset() check done above is valid when some of the crypto capabilities may be cleared by blk_ksm_register() later. Is the assumption actually that in the device-mapper case, blk_ksm_register() will never clear any crypto capabilities at all? If so, can that be explained properly? - Eric