Ming Lei <ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2023 at 02:11:56PM +0200, Andreas Hindborg (Samsung) wrote:
>>
>> Niklas Cassel <Niklas.Cassel@xxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> > On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 09:25:10AM +0200, Andreas Hindborg wrote:
>> >> From: Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >
>> > Hello Andreas!
>> >
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >> /* for READ request, writing data in iod->addr to rq buffers */
>> >> @@ -1120,6 +1404,11 @@ static void ublk_commit_completion(struct ublk_device *ub,
>> >> /* find the io request and complete */
>> >> req = blk_mq_tag_to_rq(ub->tag_set.tags[qid], tag);
>> >>
>> >> + if (io->flags & UBLK_IO_FLAG_ZONE_APPEND) {
>> >
>> > Do we really need to introduce a completely new flag just for this?
>> >
>> > if (req_op(req) == REQ_OP_ZONE_APPEND)
>> >
>> > should work just as well, no?
>>
>> Makes sense, thanks.
>
> The above one can be replaced with req_op().
>
> But extra cost is added when retrieving request for the check in
> __ublk_ch_uring_cmd().
>
How about this (diff to v9):
@@ -1709,7 +1702,7 @@ static int __ublk_ch_uring_cmd(struct io_uring_cmd *cmd,
goto out;
if (ublk_support_user_copy(ubq) &&
- !(io->flags & UBLK_IO_FLAG_ZONE_APPEND) && ub_cmd->addr) {
+ _IOC_NR(cmd_op) != UBLK_IO_COMMIT_AND_FETCH_REQ && ub_cmd->addr) {
ret = -EINVAL;
goto out;
}
@@ -1751,6 +1744,12 @@ static int __ublk_ch_uring_cmd(struct io_uring_cmd *cmd,
if (!(io->flags & UBLK_IO_FLAG_OWNED_BY_SRV))
goto out;
+ if (ublk_support_user_copy(ubq) &&
+ req_op(req) != REQ_OP_ZONE_APPEND && ub_cmd->addr) {
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ goto out;
+ }
+
if (!ublk_support_user_copy(ubq)) {
/*
* COMMIT_AND_FETCH_REQ has to provide IO buffer if
BR Andreas
