[PATCHv3 2/5] block: bio-integrity: directly map user buffers

[Jens Axboe]

On 11/20/23 3:40 PM, Keith Busch wrote:
> From: Keith Busch <kbusch at kernel.org>
> 
> Passthrough commands that utilize metadata currently bounce the user
> space buffer through the kernel. Add support for mapping user space
> directly so that we can avoid this costly overhead. This is similiar to
> how the normal bio data payload utilizes user addresses with
> bio_map_user_iov().
> 
> If the user address can't directly be used for reasons like too many
> segments or address unalignement, fallback to a copy of the user vec
> while keeping the user address pinned for the IO duration so that it
> can safely be copied on completion in any process context.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Keith Busch <kbusch at kernel.org>
> ---
>  block/bio-integrity.c | 212 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  include/linux/bio.h   |  12 +++
>  2 files changed, 224 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/block/bio-integrity.c b/block/bio-integrity.c
> index ec8ac8cf6e1b9..b761058bfb92f 100644
> --- a/block/bio-integrity.c
> +++ b/block/bio-integrity.c
> @@ -91,6 +91,37 @@ struct bio_integrity_payload *bio_integrity_alloc(struct bio *bio,
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(bio_integrity_alloc);
>  
> +static void bio_integrity_unmap_user(struct bio_integrity_payload *bip)
> +{
> +	bool dirty = bio_data_dir(bip->bip_bio) == READ;
> +	struct bvec_iter iter;
> +	struct bio_vec bv;
> +
> +	if (bip->bip_flags & BIP_COPY_USER) {
> +		unsigned short nr_vecs = bip->bip_max_vcnt - 1;
> +		struct bio_vec *copy = bvec_virt(&bip->bip_vec[nr_vecs]);
> +		size_t bytes = bip->bip_iter.bi_size;
> +		void *buf = bvec_virt(bip->bip_vec);
> +
> +		if (dirty) {
> +			struct iov_iter iter;
> +
> +			iov_iter_bvec(&iter, ITER_DEST, copy, nr_vecs, bytes);
> +			WARN_ON_ONCE(copy_to_iter(buf, bytes, &iter) != bytes);
> +		}

Minor nit, but I don't like hiding functions with side effects inside
potentially debug statements. Would be better to do:

	ret = copy_to_iter(buf, bytes, &iter);
	WARN_ON_ONCE(ret != bytes);

which is also easier to read, imho.

Apart from that, looks good to me.

-- 
Jens Axboe