From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758873Ab2IKWN5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Sep 2012 18:13:57 -0400 Received: from mail-lb0-f174.google.com ([209.85.217.174]:38550 "EHLO mail-lb0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752289Ab2IKWNz (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Sep 2012 18:13:55 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <504FB6CB.6020607@redhat.com> References: <1342801801-15617-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <20120911165953.GK7677@google.com> <504F7B65.9090603@redhat.com> <20120911182904.GS7677@google.com> <504F88CB.6030105@redhat.com> <20120911191325.GU7677@google.com> <504F8FF0.3000408@redhat.com> <20120911200150.GV7677@google.com> <504FB22E.4090707@redhat.com> <20120911220218.GH7677@google.com> <504FB6CB.6020607@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:13:53 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 1gbKnNJ5BRXcpHxw36nrfLKAYVw Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] sg_io: allow UNMAP and WRITE SAME without CAP_SYS_RAWIO From: Tejun Heo To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, axboe@kernel.dk, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, "James E.J. Bottomley" , Kay Sievers , Al Viro Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 12/09/2012 00:02, Tejun Heo ha scritto: >> SG_IO itself is a bypassing interface. It bypasses most of block >> layer and the kernel doesn't have any idea (apart from the adhoc >> filtering) about what's going on. > > That's very much the point. The guest must have free reins. > > You asked "Could being able to bypass the filters for this "you own this > LUN" be a solution?", I said yes and outlined how. Do you agree with > the proposed solution? Ooh, yeah, I like that one. I was still thinking about the bpf one. It being based on cgroup made me worried even more. :) > Sure, I'm fine with leaving the current ad hoc filtering aside. Again, > I was hoping to get most of the job done by loosening the filter a bit, > but discussion is inversely proportional to patch length sometimes. Sorry about dragging it on. The cdb filtering one has always been controversial and I think it'll continue to be. It's an unfortunate thing that we had to add. Thanks. -- tejun