From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx>
bio_crypt_set_ctx() assumes its gfp_mask argument always includes
__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM, so that the mempool_alloc() will always succeed.
For now this assumption is still fine, since no callers violate it.
Making bio_crypt_set_ctx() able to fail would add unneeded complexity.
However, if a caller didn't use __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM, it would be very
hard to notice the bug. Make it easier by adding a WARN_ON_ONCE().
Cc: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Satya Tangirala <satyat@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
block/blk-crypto.c | 10 +++++++++-
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/block/blk-crypto.c b/block/blk-crypto.c
index bbe7974fd74f0..5da43f0973b46 100644
--- a/block/blk-crypto.c
+++ b/block/blk-crypto.c
@@ -81,7 +81,15 @@ subsys_initcall(bio_crypt_ctx_init);
void bio_crypt_set_ctx(struct bio *bio, const struct blk_crypto_key *key,
const u64 dun[BLK_CRYPTO_DUN_ARRAY_SIZE], gfp_t gfp_mask)
{
- struct bio_crypt_ctx *bc = mempool_alloc(bio_crypt_ctx_pool, gfp_mask);
+ struct bio_crypt_ctx *bc;
+
+ /*
+ * The caller must use a gfp_mask that contains __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM so
+ * that the mempool_alloc() can't fail.
+ */
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(!(gfp_mask & __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM));
+
+ bc = mempool_alloc(bio_crypt_ctx_pool, gfp_mask);
bc->bc_key = key;
memcpy(bc->bc_dun, dun, sizeof(bc->bc_dun));
--
2.28.0
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
