Re: [PATCH 03/14] target/sbc: Add sbc_check_prot + update sbc_parse_cdb for DIF

["Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@linux-iscsi.org>]

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