From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54EF673F37 for ; Mon, 31 May 2021 10:30:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3B8171C0CD for ; Mon, 31 May 2021 10:29:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 178E71C0C1 for ; Mon, 31 May 2021 10:29:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D3E3042B84 for ; Mon, 31 May 2021 10:29:31 +0200 (CEST) From: Dominik Csapak To: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com Date: Mon, 31 May 2021 10:29:31 +0200 Message-Id: <20210531082931.1127-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.20.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.042 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup] lto/sg_tape/encryption: remove non lto-4 supported byte X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 May 2021 08:30:03 -0000 from the SspDataEncryptionCapabilityPage it seems we do not need it, since the EXTDECC flag is only used for determining if the drive is capable to be configured via ADI (Automation/Drive Interface) which we do not use at all. this makes the call work with LTO-4 again Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak --- src/tape/drive/lto/sg_tape/encryption.rs | 15 ++------------- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/tape/drive/lto/sg_tape/encryption.rs b/src/tape/drive/lto/sg_tape/encryption.rs index 7b687f2c..5ce571e4 100644 --- a/src/tape/drive/lto/sg_tape/encryption.rs +++ b/src/tape/drive/lto/sg_tape/encryption.rs @@ -195,8 +195,7 @@ struct DataEncryptionStatus { struct SspDataEncryptionCapabilityPage { page_code: u16, page_len: u16, - extdecc_cfgp_byte: u8, - reserved: [u8; 15], + reserved: [u8; 16], } #[derive(Endian)] @@ -222,17 +221,7 @@ fn decode_spin_data_encryption_caps(data: &[u8]) -> Result { proxmox::try_block!({ let mut reader = &data[..]; - let page: SspDataEncryptionCapabilityPage = unsafe { reader.read_be_value()? }; - - let extdecc = (page.extdecc_cfgp_byte & 0b00001100) >> 2; - if extdecc != 2 { - bail!("not external data encryption control capable"); - } - - let cfg_p = page.extdecc_cfgp_byte & 0b00000011; - if cfg_p != 1 { - bail!("not allow to change logical block encryption parameters"); - } + let _page: SspDataEncryptionCapabilityPage = unsafe { reader.read_be_value()? }; let mut aes_cgm_index = None; -- 2.20.1