From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9970291E for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2024 02:00:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1718676025; cv=none; b=aETeZiw5o4m2x/V58lciGteyDniCzEqAkbAP2vMYdiLCU9RjEF/OXkSSgYl/cSENRxgNMb6nSM8F1MhflEdu2+8Abl2+e2qdOSoLZ+TGfVq0FHweCIDdw02yNhSm7o8lwx9eyEuq4bUbU6LjH5cMLzGxrMJ4Hb84RdZEbEu2NTw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1718676025; c=relaxed/simple; bh=KOMQBf2jooTzgmw4HBPOPDI0ew7y05JsSw1/ua11ves=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=aFdBn5PhX5cDtuRrM+yTNCV0m9pt+q+LlFnTRvRA3t7/2xrcbYqIGWBflRmZtvTOdlM3YnvmDTRq42zUVZyTvbPG47CkRhbSZNA5WrVrLDYvA9iS84l0ZFPD8Je+0gqU0SlCLTsc3NTKQMc+ml+oRtdeAz/aIRl5ahz/WRE4tTA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=Qcx4LzWN; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="Qcx4LzWN" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1718676022; 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=MitXCo6aiz4MkM4mByNI2I4K4LBxlCdnWpqnHdjsRyo=; b=Qcx4LzWNqQLJf+Yb3yNiarPmXZWk1dEf9qO1LWUmn9YFFh2I68Jo0zJGQA1bV8jZGrQXBM ETSxb7xc3qbMcKrxO3ZXaAFmdU53/Mq9KSd7yhiWxtoKKcnTLe+C5lw6rH3jF1Q0+BJo5u grlzAgMHvzRv1Kz3FwBJ8kK+PMW8sR0= Received: from mx-prod-mc-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-625-nI1DI8k1MIWSifssbm-5rA-1; Mon, 17 Jun 2024 22:00:19 -0400 X-MC-Unique: nI1DI8k1MIWSifssbm-5rA-1 Received: from mx-prod-int-02.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-02.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.15]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E5D919560B1; Tue, 18 Jun 2024 02:00:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fedora (unknown [10.72.112.49]) by mx-prod-int-02.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ED0101956087; Tue, 18 Jun 2024 02:00:13 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 10:00:08 +0800 From: Ming Lei To: Uday Shankar Cc: Jens Axboe , linux-block@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] ublk: check recovery flags for validity Message-ID: References: <20240617194451.435445-1-ushankar@purestorage.com> <20240617194451.435445-2-ushankar@purestorage.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240617194451.435445-2-ushankar@purestorage.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.0 on 10.30.177.15 On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 01:44:48PM -0600, Uday Shankar wrote: > Only certain combinations of recovery flags are valid. For example, > setting UBLK_F_USER_RECOVERY_REISSUE without also setting > UBLK_F_USER_RECOVERY is currently silently equivalent to not setting any > recovery flags. Check for such issues and fail add_dev if they are > detected. > > Signed-off-by: Uday Shankar > --- > drivers/block/ublk_drv.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/block/ublk_drv.c b/drivers/block/ublk_drv.c > index 4e159948c912..2752a9afe9d4 100644 > --- a/drivers/block/ublk_drv.c > +++ b/drivers/block/ublk_drv.c > @@ -59,6 +59,9 @@ > | UBLK_F_USER_COPY \ > | UBLK_F_ZONED) > > +#define UBLK_F_ALL_RECOVERY_FLAGS (UBLK_F_USER_RECOVERY \ > + | UBLK_F_USER_RECOVERY_REISSUE) > + > /* All UBLK_PARAM_TYPE_* should be included here */ > #define UBLK_PARAM_TYPE_ALL \ > (UBLK_PARAM_TYPE_BASIC | UBLK_PARAM_TYPE_DISCARD | \ > @@ -2341,6 +2344,18 @@ static int ublk_ctrl_add_dev(struct io_uring_cmd *cmd) > else if (!(info.flags & UBLK_F_UNPRIVILEGED_DEV)) > return -EPERM; > > + /* forbid nonsense combinations of recovery flags */ > + switch (info.flags & UBLK_F_ALL_RECOVERY_FLAGS) { > + case 0: > + case UBLK_F_USER_RECOVERY: > + case (UBLK_F_USER_RECOVERY | UBLK_F_USER_RECOVERY_REISSUE): > + break; > + default: > + pr_warn("%s: invalid recovery flags %llx\n", __func__, > + info.flags & UBLK_F_ALL_RECOVERY_FLAGS); > + return -EINVAL; > + } > + It could be cleaner and more readable to check the fail condition only: if ((info.flags & UBLK_F_USER_RECOVERY_REISSUE) && !(info.flags & UBLK_F_USER_RECOVERY)) { ... } Thanks, Ming