On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 02:04:56AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 07:50:07PM -0500, Keith Busch wrote:
> > I think we should get rid of the "majmin" stuff
> Absolutely agreed.
> >
> > and directly use
> > block_device. Then if we add the security send/receive operations to the
> > block_device_operations, that will simplify chaining the security request
> > to the driver without needing to thread the driver's requested callback
> > and data the way you have to here since all the necessary information
> > is encapsulated in the block_device.
> Maybe.  I need to look at the TCG spec again (oh my good, what a fucking
> mess), but if I remember the context if it is the whole nvme controller
> and not just a namespace, so a block_device might be the wrong context.
> Then again we can always go from the block_device to the controller
> fairly easily.  So instead of adding the security operation to the
> block_device_operations which we don't really need for now maybe we
> should add a security_conext to the block device so that we can avoid
> all the lookup code?

I spent some time this morning reading through the numerous specs/documents,
with a lot of coffee.

Specifically in:


A target that has multiple Namespaces MAY have  multiple TPers. Each TPer
SHALL be associated with a different Namespace. Every Namespace on a device
is not required to have a TPer, but Namespaces that support the TCG Core
specification commands and functionality SHALL have a TPer. A TPer SHALL only
be associated with exactly one Namespace. A Namespace MAY have no TPer.

>From reading that it seems we will probably have to keep it at the block layer,
since its possible to have a valid "Locking range 1" on n1 and a "Locking range 
on n2.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to