On 2/28/2015 12:35 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
From: Nicholas Bellinger <n...@linux-iscsi.org>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.peter...@oracle.com> Cc: Sagi Grimberg <sa...@mellanox.com> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <h...@lst.de> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Bellinger <n...@linux-iscsi.org> --- 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 linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
