Linux RAID subsystem development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>
To: John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>,
	agk@redhat.com, snitzer@kernel.org, mpatocka@redhat.com,
	song@kernel.org, yukuai3@huawei.com, hch@lst.de,
	nilay@linux.ibm.com, axboe@kernel.dk, cem@kernel.org
Cc: dm-devel@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	ojaswin@linux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@oracle.com,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
	djwong@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/6] block: sanitize chunk_sectors for atomic write limits
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 17:42:26 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <901ca013-ad1f-45cf-9086-fb4db6c7419b@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250711080929.3091196-3-john.g.garry@oracle.com>

On 7/11/25 5:09 PM, John Garry wrote:
> Currently we just ensure that a non-zero value in chunk_sectors aligns
> with any atomic write boundary, as the blk boundary functionality uses
> both these values.
> 
> However it is also improper to have atomic write unit max > chunk_sectors
> (for non-zero chunk_sectors), as this would lead to splitting of atomic
> write bios (which is disallowed).
> 
> Sanitize atomic write unit max against chunk_sectors to avoid any
> potential problems.
> 
> Fixes: d00eea91deaf3 ("block: Add extra checks in blk_validate_atomic_write_limits()")
> Reviewed-by: Nilay Shroff <nilay@linux.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>
> ---
>  block/blk-settings.c | 5 +++++
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/block/blk-settings.c b/block/blk-settings.c
> index a000daafbfb48..a2c089167174e 100644
> --- a/block/blk-settings.c
> +++ b/block/blk-settings.c
> @@ -180,6 +180,7 @@ static void blk_atomic_writes_update_limits(struct queue_limits *lim)
>  
>  static void blk_validate_atomic_write_limits(struct queue_limits *lim)
>  {
> +	unsigned long long chunk_bytes = lim->chunk_sectors << SECTOR_SHIFT;

Don't you need to cast to a 64-bits "lim->chunk_sectors" here ?

>  	unsigned int boundary_sectors;
>  
>  	if (!(lim->features & BLK_FEAT_ATOMIC_WRITES))
> @@ -202,6 +203,10 @@ static void blk_validate_atomic_write_limits(struct queue_limits *lim)
>  			 lim->atomic_write_hw_max))
>  		goto unsupported;
>  
> +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(chunk_bytes &&
> +			lim->atomic_write_hw_unit_max > chunk_bytes))
> +		goto unsupported;
> +
>  	boundary_sectors = lim->atomic_write_hw_boundary >> SECTOR_SHIFT;
>  
>  	if (boundary_sectors) {


-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research

  reply	other threads:[~2025-07-11  8:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-07-11  8:09 [PATCH v6 0/6] block/md/dm: set chunk_sectors from stacked dev stripe size John Garry
2025-07-11  8:09 ` [PATCH v6 1/6] ilog2: add max_pow_of_two_factor() John Garry
2025-07-11  8:09 ` [PATCH v6 2/6] block: sanitize chunk_sectors for atomic write limits John Garry
2025-07-11  8:42   ` Damien Le Moal [this message]
2025-07-11  9:22     ` John Garry
2025-07-11  8:09 ` [PATCH v6 3/6] md/raid0: set chunk_sectors limit John Garry
2025-07-11  8:09 ` [PATCH v6 4/6] md/raid10: " John Garry
2025-07-11  8:09 ` [PATCH v6 5/6] dm-stripe: limit chunk_sectors to the stripe size John Garry
2025-07-11  8:09 ` [PATCH v6 6/6] block: use chunk_sectors when evaluating stacked atomic write limits John Garry
2025-07-11  8:44 ` [PATCH v6 0/6] block/md/dm: set chunk_sectors from stacked dev stripe size Damien Le Moal
2025-07-11  9:16   ` John Garry
2025-07-14  5:53   ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-07-14  6:00     ` Damien Le Moal
2025-07-14  6:13       ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-07-15 15:45         ` Hannes Reinecke
2025-07-14  7:52     ` John Garry
2025-07-14 10:46       ` Christoph Hellwig

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=901ca013-ad1f-45cf-9086-fb4db6c7419b@kernel.org \
    --to=dlemoal@kernel.org \
    --cc=agk@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=cem@kernel.org \
    --cc=djwong@kernel.org \
    --cc=dm-devel@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=john.g.garry@oracle.com \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
    --cc=mpatocka@redhat.com \
    --cc=nilay@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=ojaswin@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=snitzer@kernel.org \
    --cc=song@kernel.org \
    --cc=yukuai3@huawei.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox