On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 08:34:22PM +0800, Yongji Xie wrote: > On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 8:21 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 01:40:41PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 06:42:43AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > Stefan also pointed out this duplicates the logic from > > > > > > > > if (blksize < 512 || blksize > PAGE_SIZE || !is_power_of_2(blksize)) > > > > return -EINVAL; > > > > > > > > > > > > and a bunch of other places. > > > > > > > > > > > > Would it be acceptable for blk layer to validate the input > > > > instead of having each driver do it's own thing? > > > > Maybe inside blk_queue_logical_block_size? > > > > > > I'm pretty sure we want down that before. Let's just add a helper > > > just for that check for now as part of this series. Actually validating > > > in in blk_queue_logical_block_size seems like a good idea, but returning > > > errors from that has a long tail. > > > > Xie Yongji, I think I will revert this patch for now - can you > > please work out adding that helper and using it in virtio? > > > > Fine, I will do it. > > Thanks, > Yongji Great, thanks! And while at it, pls research a bit more and mention in the commit log what is the result of an illegal blk size? Is it memory corruption? A catastrophic failure? If it's one of these cases, then it's ok to just fail probe. -- MST
