On Wed, May 13, 2026 at 10:52:39AM +0200, Daniel Vacek wrote:
> @@ -330,6 +330,17 @@ static void __blk_crypto_fallback_encrypt_bio(struct bio
> *src_bio,
> }
> }
>
> + /* Process the encrypted bio before we submit it. */
> + if (bc->bc_key->crypto_cfg.process_bio) {
> + blk_status_t status;
> +
> + status = bc->bc_key->crypto_cfg.process_bio(src_bio, enc_bio);
> + if (status != BLK_STS_OK) {
> + enc_bio->bi_status = status;
> + goto out_free_enc_bio;
> + }
> + }
This looks very out of place in this function, because this function
potentially submits multiple encrypted bios whereas this code assumes
there's just one. I think we could at least use a comment here, as well
as a WARN_ON_ONCE(!bc->bc_key->crypto_cfg.process_bio) in the case where
an additional bio is being submitted.
> + /*
> + * We cannot split bio's that have process_bio, as they require the
> original bio.
> + * The upper layer must make sure to limit the submitted bio's
> appropriately.
> + */
> + if (bio_segments(src_bio) > BIO_MAX_VECS &&
> bc->bc_key->crypto_cfg.process_bio) {
Checks should be reversed so that the expensive bio_segments() check
only gets done if process_bio is non-NULL.
(Sashiko spotted this too, by the way)
> + * @process_bio: the call back if the upper layer needs to process the
> encrypted
> + * bio
or NULL if no such callback is needed.
> + * @proces_bio: optional callback to process encrypted bios.
Typo.
By the way, after writing kerneldoc you should run the kerneldoc
checker, as it will find things like this:
$ scripts/kernel-doc -v -none include/linux/blk-crypto.h
Info: include/linux/blk-crypto.h:79 Scanning doc for struct blk_crypto_config
Warning: include/linux/blk-crypto.h:95 struct member 'process_bio' not
described in 'blk_crypto_config'
