On 01.04.2016 14:22, Olaf Hering wrote:
> Large discard requests lead to sign expansion errors in qemu.
> Since there is no API to tell a guest about the limitations qmeu
> has to split a large request itself.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de>
> Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
> Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
> ---
>  block/io.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Hi!

Let me first nag about some style problems, and then I'll come to the
technical/design aspect. :-)

> diff --git a/block/io.c b/block/io.c
> index c4869b9..5b6ed58 100644
> --- a/block/io.c
> +++ b/block/io.c
> @@ -2442,7 +2442,7 @@ static void coroutine_fn bdrv_discard_co_entry(void *opaque)
>      rwco->ret = bdrv_co_discard(rwco->bs, rwco->sector_num, rwco->nb_sectors);
>  }
>  
> -int coroutine_fn bdrv_co_discard(BlockDriverState *bs, int64_t sector_num,
> +static int __bdrv_co_discard(BlockDriverState *bs, int64_t sector_num,

Two things: First, I think we do not like identifiers to start with
underscores, especially not with two underscores or with underscore and
a capital letter, because in C those combinations are generally reserved
for compiler/language extensions or for the operating system (think of
__attribute__(), __asm__(), or _Bool).

Second, the coroutine_fn should stay. This is just an empty macro (I
think) that signifies that a certain function is run inside of a
coroutine. That fact will not change if you put a wrapper around it.

>                                   int nb_sectors)

This should be aligned to the opening paranthesis of the line above.

>  {
>      BdrvTrackedRequest req;
> @@ -2524,6 +2524,26 @@ out:
>      return ret;
>  }
>  
> +int coroutine_fn bdrv_co_discard(BlockDriverState *bs, int64_t sector_num,
> +                                 int nb_sectors)
> +{
> +    int num, ret;
> +    int limit = BDRV_REQUEST_MAX_SECTORS;
> +    int remaining = nb_sectors;
> +    int64_t sector_offset = sector_num;
> +
> +    do {
> +        num = remaining > limit ? limit : remaining;

num = MIN(limit, remaining); would work just as fine and maybe look a
bit better.

> +        ret = __bdrv_co_discard(bs, sector_offset, num);
> +        if (ret < 0)
> +            break;

In qemu, every block is enclosed by {} braces, even if it contains only
a single statement.

This is something that the checkpatch script (scripts/checkpatch.pl in
the qemu tree) can detect. It is advisible to run that scripts on
patches before they are sent to the mailing list.

> +        remaining -= num;
> +        sector_offset += num;
> +    } while (remaining > 0);
> +
> +    return ret;
> +}
> +
>  int bdrv_discard(BlockDriverState *bs, int64_t sector_num, int nb_sectors)
>  {
>      Coroutine *co;
> 

So, now about the technical aspect:

Guest requests are not issued to BlockDriverStates directly, they pass
through a BlockBackend first. The check whether the request is too large
is done there (in blk_check_request() called by blk_co_discard() and
blk_aio_discard()).

Thus, if a discard request exceeds BDRV_REQUEST_MAX_SECTORS, it will be
denied at the BlockBackend level and not reach bdrv_co_discard() at all.
At least that is how it's supposed to be. If it isn't, that's a bug. ;-)

Finally, I'm not sure whether this is something that should be done in
the block layer. I personally feel like it is the device models'
responsibility to only submit requests that adhere to the limits
established by the block layer.

In any case, do you have a test case where a guest was able to submit a
request that led to the overflow error you described in the commit message?

Max