Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] spec: Tweak description of maximum block size

[Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 11:22:49PM +0300, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
> On 11/15/22 01:46, Eric Blake wrote:
> > Commit 9f30fedb improved the spec to allow non-payload requests that
> > exceed any advertised maximum block size.  Take this one step further
> > by permitting the server to use NBD_EOVERFLOW as a hint to the client
> > when a request is oversize (while permitting NBD_EINVAL for
> > back-compat), and by rewording the text to explicitly call out that
> > what is being advertised is the maximum payload length, not maximum
> > block size.  This becomes more important when we add 64-bit
> > extensions, where it becomes possible to extend `NBD_CMD_BLOCK_STATUS`
> > to have both an effect length (how much of the image does the client
> > want status on - may be larger than 32 bits) and an optional payload
> > length (a way to filter the response to a subset of negotiated
> > metadata contexts).  In the shorter term, it means that a server may
> > (but not must) accept a read request larger than the maximum block
> > size if it can use structured replies to keep each chunk of the
> > response under the maximum payload limits.
> > ---
> >   doc/proto.md | 127 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
> >   1 file changed, 73 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/doc/proto.md b/doc/proto.md
> > index 8f08583..53c334a 100644
> > --- a/doc/proto.md
> > +++ b/doc/proto.md
> > @@ -745,8 +745,8 @@ text unless the client insists on TLS.
> > 
> >   During transmission phase, several operations are constrained by the
> >   export size sent by the final `NBD_OPT_EXPORT_NAME` or `NBD_OPT_GO`,
> > -as well as by three block size constraints defined here (minimum,
> > -preferred, and maximum).
> > +as well as by three block size constraints defined here (minimum
> > +block, preferred block, and maximum payload).
> > 
> >   If a client can honour server block size constraints (as set out below
> >   and under `NBD_INFO_BLOCK_SIZE`), it SHOULD announce this during the
> > @@ -772,15 +772,15 @@ learn the server's constraints without committing to them.
> > 
> >   If block size constraints have not been advertised or agreed on
> >   externally, then a server SHOULD support a default minimum block size
> > -of 1, a preferred block size of 2^12 (4,096), and a maximum block size
> > -that is effectively unlimited (0xffffffff, or the export size if that
> > -is smaller), while a client desiring maximum interoperability SHOULD
> > -constrain its requests to a minimum block size of 2^9 (512), and limit
> > -`NBD_CMD_READ` and `NBD_CMD_WRITE` commands to a maximum block size of
> > -2^25 (33,554,432).  A server that wants to enforce block sizes other
> > -than the defaults specified here MAY refuse to go into transmission
> > -phase with a client that uses `NBD_OPT_EXPORT_NAME` (via a hard
> > -disconnect) or which uses `NBD_OPT_GO` without requesting
> > +of 1, a preferred block size of 2^12 (4,096), and a maximum block
> > +payload size that is at least 2^25 (33,554,432) (even if the export
> 
> I'm not sure about term "block payload size".. What's "block payload"? May be "reply payload size" or something like this?
> 
> Or should we simply say about simple-reply / structured-reply-chunk total size limit?

Yes, I could live with 'reply payload size limit'; a simple-reply
always has one payload, while a structured-reply can be divided across
multiple chunks where each chunk payload fits that limit.

> 
> > +size is smaller); while a client desiring maximum interoperability
> > +SHOULD constrain its requests to a minimum block size of 2^9 (512),
> > +and limit `NBD_CMD_READ` and `NBD_CMD_WRITE` commands to a maximum
> > +block size of 2^25 (33,554,432).  A server that wants to enforce block
> > +sizes other than the defaults specified here MAY refuse to go into
> > +transmission phase with a client that uses `NBD_OPT_EXPORT_NAME` (via
> > +a hard disconnect) or which uses `NBD_OPT_GO` without requesting
> >   `NBD_INFO_BLOCK_SIZE` (via an error reply of
> >   `NBD_REP_ERR_BLOCK_SIZE_REQD`); but servers SHOULD NOT refuse clients
> >   that do not request sizing information when the server supports
> > @@ -818,17 +818,40 @@ the preferred block size for that export.  The server MAY advertise an
> >   export size that is not an integer multiple of the preferred block
> >   size.
> > 
> > -The maximum block size represents the maximum length that the server
> 
> The term "maximum block size" is not defined anymore (and removed from NBD_INFO_BLOCK_SIZE)...
> 
> > -is willing to handle in one request.  If advertised, it MAY be
> > -something other than a power of 2, but MUST be either an integer
> > -multiple of the minimum block size or the value 0xffffffff for no
> > -inherent limit, MUST be at least as large as the smaller of the
> > +The maximum block payload size represents the maximum payload length
> > +that the server is willing to handle in one request.  If advertised,
> > +it MAY be something other than a power of 2, but MUST be either an
> > +integer multiple of the minimum block size or the value 0xffffffff for
> > +no inherent limit, MUST be at least as large as the smaller of the
> >   preferred block size or export size, and SHOULD be at least 2^20
> >   (1,048,576) if the export is that large.  For convenience, the server
> > -MAY advertise a maximum block size that is larger than the export
> > -size, although in that case, the client MUST treat the export size as
> > -the effective maximum block size (as further constrained by a nonzero
> > -offset).
> > +MAY advertise a maximum block payload size that is larger than the
> > +export size, although in that case, the client MUST treat the export
> > +size as an effective maximum block size (as further constrained by a
> 
> ... but still used.

Hmm, I'll have to make sure I get my wording precise on v3.

> 
> 
> > +nonzero offset).  Notwithstanding any maximum block size advertised,
> > +either the server or the client MAY initiate a hard disconnect if a
> > +payload length of either a request or a reply would be large enough to
> > +be deemed a denial of service attack; however, for maximum
> > +portability, any payload *length* not exceeding 2^25 (33,554,432)
> > +bytes SHOULD NOT be considered a denial of service attack, even if
> > +that length is larger than the advertised maximum block payload size.
> > +
> > +For commands that require a payload in either direction and where the
> > +client controls the payload length (`NBD_CMD_WRITE`, or `NBD_CMD_READ`
> > +without structured replies), the client MUST NOT use a length larger
> > +than the maximum block size. For replies where the payload length is
> > +controlled by the server (`NBD_CMD_BLOCK_STATUS` without the flag
> > +`NBD_CMD_FLAG_REQ_ONE`, or `NBD_CMD_READ`, both when structured
> > +replies are negotiated), the server MUST NOT send an individual reply
> > +chunk larger than the maximum payload size, although it may split the
> > +overall reply among several chunks.  For commands that do not require
> > +a payload in either direction (such as `NBD_CMD_TRIM`), the client MAY
> > +request a length larger than the maximum block size; the server SHOULD
> > +NOT disconnect, but MAY reply with an `NBD_EOVERFLOW` or `NBD_EINVAL`
> > +error if the oversize request would require more server resources than
> > +the same command operating on only a maximum block size (such as some
> > +implementations of `NBD_CMD_WRITE_ZEROES` without the flag
> > +`NBD_CMD_FLAG_FAST_ZERO`, or `NBD_CMD_CACHE`).
> 
> [..]
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> Vladimir
> 

-- 
Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.           +1-919-301-3266
Virtualization:  qemu.org | libvirt.org