On Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 9:26 AM Ming Lei <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 10:34:38PM -0700, Caleb Sander Mateos wrote:
> > From: Stanley Zhang <[email protected]>
> >
> > Add UAPI definitions for metadata/integrity support in ublk.
> > UBLK_PARAM_TYPE_INTEGRITY and struct ublk_param_integrity allow a ublk
> > server to specify the integrity params of a ublk device.
> > The ublk driver will set UBLK_IO_F_INTEGRITY in the op_flags field of
> > struct ublksrv_io_desc for requests with integrity data.
> > The ublk server uses user copy with UBLKSRV_IO_INTEGRITY_FLAG set in the
> > offset parameter to access a request's integrity buffer.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stanley Zhang <[email protected]>
> > [csander: drop feature flag and redundant pi_tuple_size field,
> > add io_desc flag, use block metadata UAPI constants]
> > Signed-off-by: Caleb Sander Mateos <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > include/uapi/linux/ublk_cmd.h | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/ublk_cmd.h b/include/uapi/linux/ublk_cmd.h
> > index ec77dabba45b..5bfb9a0521c3 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/ublk_cmd.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/ublk_cmd.h
> > @@ -129,11 +129,15 @@
> > #define UBLK_QID_BITS 12
> > #define UBLK_QID_BITS_MASK ((1ULL << UBLK_QID_BITS) - 1)
> >
> > #define UBLK_MAX_NR_QUEUES (1U << UBLK_QID_BITS)
> >
> > -#define UBLKSRV_IO_BUF_TOTAL_BITS (UBLK_QID_OFF + UBLK_QID_BITS)
> > +/* Copy to/from request integrity buffer instead of data buffer */
> > +#define UBLK_INTEGRITY_FLAG_OFF (UBLK_QID_OFF + UBLK_QID_BITS)
> > +#define UBLKSRV_IO_INTEGRITY_FLAG (1ULL << UBLK_INTEGRITY_FLAG_OFF)
> > +
>
> I feel it is more readable to move the definition into the patch which uses
> them.
Sure, I can do that.
>
> > +#define UBLKSRV_IO_BUF_TOTAL_BITS (UBLK_INTEGRITY_FLAG_OFF + 1)
>
> It is UAPI, UBLKSRV_IO_BUF_TOTAL_BITS shouldn't be changed, or can you
> explain this way is safe?
It's not clear to me how userspace is expected to use
UBLKSRV_IO_BUF_TOTAL_BITS. (Our ublk server, for one, doesn't use it.)
Can you provide an example? It looks to me like the purpose is to
communicate the number of bits needed to represent a user copy offset
value, in which case it makes sense to include the integrity flag now
that that bit is being used.
>
> > #define UBLKSRV_IO_BUF_TOTAL_SIZE (1ULL << UBLKSRV_IO_BUF_TOTAL_BITS)
> >
> > /*
> > * ublk server can register data buffers for incoming I/O requests with a
> > sparse
> > * io_uring buffer table. The request buffer can then be used as the data
> > buffer
> > @@ -406,10 +410,12 @@ struct ublksrv_ctrl_dev_info {
> > *
> > * ublk server has to check this flag if UBLK_AUTO_BUF_REG_FALLBACK is
> > * passed in.
> > */
> > #define UBLK_IO_F_NEED_REG_BUF (1U << 17)
> > +/* Request has an integrity data buffer */
> > +#define UBLK_IO_F_INTEGRITY (1U << 18)
> >
> > /*
> > * io cmd is described by this structure, and stored in share memory,
> > indexed
> > * by request tag.
> > *
> > @@ -598,10 +604,20 @@ struct ublk_param_segment {
> > __u32 max_segment_size;
> > __u16 max_segments;
> > __u8 pad[2];
> > };
> >
> > +struct ublk_param_integrity {
> > + __u32 flags; /* LBMD_PI_CAP_* from linux/fs.h */
> > + __u8 interval_exp;
> > + __u8 metadata_size;
> > + __u8 pi_offset;
> > + __u8 csum_type; /* LBMD_PI_CSUM_* from linux/fs.h */
> > + __u8 tag_size;
> > + __u8 pad[7];
> > +};
> > +
>
> Just be curious, `pi_tuple_size` isn't defined, instead it is hard-coded in
> ublk_integrity_pi_tuple_size().
>
> However, both scsi and nvme sets `pi_tuple_size`, so it means that ublk PI
> supports one `subset` or scsi/nvme `pi_tuple_size` can be removed too?
blk_validate_integrity_limits() validates that pi_tuple_size matches
the expected PI size for each csum_type value. So it looks like these
fields are redundant. Yes, pi_tuple_size could probably be removed
from the scsi/nvme block drivers too. But maybe there's value in
having the drivers explicitly specify both values?
Thanks,
Caleb
