| Message ID | 20221107131038.201724-1-beanhuo@iokpp.de (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | UFS Advanced RPMB | expand |
Hi, > In UFS 4.0, it introduced advanced RPMB, which can significantly improve > RPMB's command performance, enhancing its atomic operation. We don't > know which implementation will please everyone, mark this advanced RPMB > patch as RFC. Any suggestions to make the patch a master patch are welcome. > > Based on suggestions and feedback from Hannes Reinecke and Bart, we can > use job_bsg->request and job_bsg->reply to pass EHS packets without changing > the BSG V4 structure and BSG core. Can you share the reference to this mail thread, or was it a privet discussion? Thanks, Avri >So we push RFC patch just to start > Advanced RPMB mainlining > > Bean Huo (2): > ufs: core: Advanced RPMB detection > ufs: core: Add advanced RPMB support in ufs_bsg > > drivers/ufs/core/ufs_bsg.c | 115 +++++++++++++--------- > drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c | 161 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------- > include/uapi/scsi/scsi_bsg_ufs.h | 30 +++++- > include/ufs/ufs.h | 3 + > include/ufs/ufshcd.h | 5 + > 5 files changed, 233 insertions(+), 81 deletions(-) > > -- > 2.25.1
On Tue, 2022-11-08 at 12:37 +0000, Avri Altman wrote: > Hi, > > > In UFS 4.0, it introduced advanced RPMB, which can significantly > > improve > > RPMB's command performance, enhancing its atomic operation. We > > don't > > know which implementation will please everyone, mark this advanced > > RPMB > > patch as RFC. Any suggestions to make the patch a master patch are > > welcome. > > Based on suggestions and feedback from Hannes Reinecke and Bart, we > > can > > use job_bsg->request and job_bsg->reply to pass EHS packets without > > changing > > the BSG V4 structure and BSG core. > > Can you share the reference to this mail thread, or was it a privet > discussion? > > > > Thanks, > > Avri Avri, Yes, this is a private discussion during this year's Storage Summit wit h Hannes Reinecke on the first two proposals below, and a private discussion with Bart on the following three proposals 1. Use current BSG v4, and transmit EHS in sense_buffer, which is rejected. 2. The optional suggestion is to use ufs_bsg, which is the patch. 3. New RPMB framework, but we should enable UFS/eMMC RPMB driver as well in ufs/emmc core, also, the command will be passed to kernel over ioctl(). interested in this one, But Bart suggested using io_uing framework. Since RPMB operation is atomic required, we found it is not safe to use io_uring now, this need passthorugh support SCSI layer as well. Kind regards, Bean
> In UFS 4.0, it introduced advanced RPMB, which can significantly improve > RPMB's command performance, enhancing its atomic operation. We don't > know which implementation will please everyone, mark this advanced RPMB > patch as RFC. Any suggestions to make the patch a master patch are welcome. > > Based on suggestions and feedback from Hannes Reinecke and Bart, we can > use job_bsg->request and job_bsg->reply to pass EHS packets without changing > the BSG V4 structure and BSG core. So we push RFC patch just to start > Advanced RPMB mainlining I concur with this approach. The current limitations that the new spec imposes, e.g. putting confidential data in a construct that lives in the ufs-driver, practically gives no other alternative but ufs-bsg. If no one else object, maybe you can leave out the rfc from the next version. Thanks, Avri > > Bean Huo (2): > ufs: core: Advanced RPMB detection > ufs: core: Add advanced RPMB support in ufs_bsg > > drivers/ufs/core/ufs_bsg.c | 115 +++++++++++++--------- > drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c | 161 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------- > include/uapi/scsi/scsi_bsg_ufs.h | 30 +++++- > include/ufs/ufs.h | 3 + > include/ufs/ufshcd.h | 5 + > 5 files changed, 233 insertions(+), 81 deletions(-) > > -- > 2.25.1
Avri, Thanks for your suggetions and review On Wed, 2022-11-09 at 08:18 +0000, Avri Altman wrote: > > In UFS 4.0, it introduced advanced RPMB, which can significantly > > improve > > RPMB's command performance, enhancing its atomic operation. We > > don't > > know which implementation will please everyone, mark this advanced > > RPMB > > patch as RFC. Any suggestions to make the patch a master patch are > > welcome. > > Based on suggestions and feedback from Hannes Reinecke and Bart, we > > can > > use job_bsg->request and job_bsg->reply to pass EHS packets without > > changing > > the BSG V4 structure and BSG core. So we push RFC patch just to > > start > > Advanced RPMB mainlining > > I concur with this approach. > > The current limitations that the new spec imposes, > > e.g. putting confidential data in a construct that lives in the ufs- > driver, > > practically gives no other alternative but ufs-bsg. > > > > If no one else object, maybe you can leave out the rfc from the next > version. > > I will prepare next version, and address your all questions in the next version. thanks. Kind regards, Bean