On Wed, 15 Apr 2020, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > > > + r = writecache_read_metadata(wc, > > > > + min((sector_t)bdev_logical_block_size(wc->ssd_dev->bdev) >> SECTOR_SHIFT, > > > > + (sector_t)wc->metadata_sectors)); > > > > > > Can you explain why this is needed? Why isn't wc->metadata_sectors > > > already compatible with wc->ssd_dev->bdev ? > > > > bdev_logical_block_size is the minimum size accepted by the device. If we > > used just bdev_logical_block_size(wc->ssd_dev->bdev), someone could (by > > using extremely small device with large logical_block_size) trigger > > writing out of the allocated memory. > > OK... > > > > Yet you just use wc->metadata_sectors in the new call to > > > writecache_read_metadata() in writecache_resume()... > > > > This was my mistake. Change it to "region.count = n_sectors"; > > sure, that addresses one aspect. But I'm also asking: > given what yoou said above about reading past end of smaller device, why > is it safe to do this in writecache_resume ? > > r = writecache_read_metadata(wc, wc->metadata_sectors); > > Shouldn't ctr do extra validation and then all calls to > writecache_read_metadata() use wc->metadata_sectors? Which would remove > need to pass extra 'n_sectors' arg to writecache_read_metadata()? > > Mike wc->memory_map = vmalloc(n_metadata_blocks << wc->block_size_bits); ... wc->metadata_sectors = n_metadata_blocks << (wc->block_size_bits - SECTOR_SHIFT); So we are always sure that we can read/write wc->metadata_sectors safely. The problem is - what if bdev_logical_block_size is larger than wc->metadata_sectors? Then, we would overread past the end of allocated memory. The device wouldn't work anyway in this case, so perhaps a better solution would be to reject this as an error in the constructor. Mikulas -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
