On 05/25/2016 04:59 AM, Eric Blake wrote: > Similar to commit df7b97ff, we are mishandling clients that > give an unaligned NBD_CMD_TRIM request, and potentially > trimming bytes that occur before their request; which in turn > can cause potential unintended data loss (unlikely in > practice, since most clients are sane and issue aligned trim > requests). However, while we fixed read and write by switching > to the byte interfaces of blk_, we don't yet have a byte > interface for discard. On the other hand, trim is advisory, so > rounding the user's request to simply ignore the first and last > unaligned sectors (or the entire request, if it is sub-sector > in length) is just fine. > > CC: qemu-stable@nongnu.org > Signed-off-by: Eric Blake > --- > > v2: don't underflow request.len on sub-sector requests > > nbd/server.c | 20 ++++++++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/nbd/server.c b/nbd/server.c > index fa862cd..b2cfeb9 100644 > --- a/nbd/server.c > +++ b/nbd/server.c > @@ -1153,12 +1153,20 @@ static void nbd_trip(void *opaque) > break; > case NBD_CMD_TRIM: > TRACE("Request type is TRIM"); > - ret = blk_co_discard(exp->blk, (request.from + exp->dev_offset) > - / BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE, > - request.len / BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE); > - if (ret < 0) { > - LOG("discard failed"); > - reply.error = -ret; > + /* Ignore unaligned head or tail, until block layer adds byte > + * interface */ > + if (request.len >= BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE) { > + request.len -= (request.from + request.len) % BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE; > + ret = blk_co_discard(exp->blk, > + DIV_ROUND_UP(request.from + exp->dev_offset, > + BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE), > + request.len / BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE); This can end up calling blk_co_discard(, , 0) - do we need to audit whether all underlying drivers handle a 0-length request, and/or special-case this in blk_co_discard() to be an explicit no-op? -- Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org