From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 395DEC433DF for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 13:43:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14A7820782 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 13:43:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="ATJOVB/Z" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728750AbgHKNnu (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Aug 2020 09:43:50 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com ([205.139.110.61]:53001 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728532AbgHKNnu (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Aug 2020 09:43:50 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1597153429; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=qTs9tEIfkpkQuoImhzLg73XNWyICbg9KzMJ6GTUMsIw=; b=ATJOVB/ZXctybd851XCVEA67NiugPosQ77+i0d/HUkUiHWYcx63wKKdqWcwZILWIlxTSe3 0k/OVVaL01YDszGPils7BasPAZGqCA3HYl2+BhVR+q9NPIl77SrUM+uKd5mEP53ajDRkC6 904PNY7k+pp42CjWqigZxOS45jNVboo= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-258-bgUQICEpNKeZBFXtIH2srA-1; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 09:43:47 -0400 X-MC-Unique: bgUQICEpNKeZBFXtIH2srA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2241E8017FB; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 13:43:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from T590 (ovpn-13-156.pek2.redhat.com [10.72.13.156]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7498269319; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 13:43:31 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 21:43:26 +0800 From: Ming Lei To: Stefano Garzarella Cc: Jens Axboe , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , Changpeng Liu , Daniel Verkamp , "Michael S . Tsirkin" , Stefan Hajnoczi Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] block: virtio_blk: fix handling single range discard request Message-ID: <20200811134326.GA2266621@T590> References: <20200811092134.2256095-1-ming.lei@redhat.com> <20200811092134.2256095-3-ming.lei@redhat.com> <20200811123044.mzsc2clpf6nxf6f6@steredhat> <20200811130953.GA2225752@T590> <20200811133925.m6szpaxqetsxxutz@steredhat> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200811133925.m6szpaxqetsxxutz@steredhat> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 03:39:25PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 09:09:53PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 02:30:44PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > > > Hi Ming, > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 05:21:34PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > > > > 1f23816b8eb8 ("virtio_blk: add discard and write zeroes support") starts > > > > to support multi-range discard for virtio-blk. However, the virtio-blk > > > > disk may report max discard segment as 1, at least that is exactly what > > > > qemu is doing. > > > > > > > > So far, block layer switches to normal request merge if max discard segment > > > > limit is 1, and multiple bios can be merged to single segment. This way may > > > > cause memory corruption in virtblk_setup_discard_write_zeroes(). > > > > > > > > Fix the issue by handling single max discard segment in straightforward > > > > way. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ming Lei > > > > Fixes: 1f23816b8eb8 ("virtio_blk: add discard and write zeroes support") > > > > Cc: Christoph Hellwig > > > > Cc: Changpeng Liu > > > > Cc: Daniel Verkamp > > > > Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin > > > > Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi > > > > --- > > > > drivers/block/virtio_blk.c | 23 +++++++++++++++-------- > > > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c > > > > index 63b213e00b37..05b01903122b 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c' > > > > @@ -126,14 +126,21 @@ static int virtblk_setup_discard_write_zeroes(struct request *req, bool unmap) > > > > if (!range) > > > > return -ENOMEM; > > > > > > We are allocating the 'range' array to contain 'segments' elements. > > > When queue_max_discard_segments() returns 1, should we limit 'segments' > > > to 1? > > > > That is block layer's responsibility to make sure that 'segments' is <= > > 1, and we can double check & warn here. > > So, IIUC, the number of bio in a request may not be the same as > the return value of blk_rq_nr_discard_segments(). Is it right? In case that queue_max_discard_segments() is 1, it is right. If queue_max_discard_segments() is > 1, nr_range is supposed to be same with number of bios in a request. Thanks, Ming