From: Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@sandisk.com>
To: "jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com" <jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"steve.magnani@digidescorp.com" <steve.magnani@digidescorp.com>,
"martin.petersen@oracle.com" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
Cc: "linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"steve@digidescorp.com" <steve@digidescorp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sd: close hole in > 2T device rejection when !CONFIG_LBDAF
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 18:57:44 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1488221849.2656.8.camel@sandisk.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3a6783ec-200d-5df5-2e1e-756c7e8b7c22@digidescorp.com>
On Mon, 2017-02-27 at 11:13 -0600, Steve Magnani wrote:
> On 02/27/2017 10:13 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > Why are the two checks slightly different? Could the same code be used for
> > both checks?
>
> The checks are different because with READ CAPACITY(16) a _really_ huge
> device could report a max LBA so large that left-shifting it causes bits
> to drop off the end. That's not an issue with READ CAPACITY(10) because
> at most the 32-bit LBA reported by the device will become a 35-bit value
> (since the max supported block size is 4096 == (512 << 3)).
Sorry but I still don't understand why the two checks are different. How about
the (untested) patch below? The approach below avoids that the check is
duplicated and - at least in my opinion - results in code that is easier to read.
Thanks,
Bart.
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/sd.c b/drivers/scsi/sd.c
index cb6e68dd6df0..3533d1e46bde 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/sd.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/sd.c
@@ -2082,6 +2082,16 @@ static void read_capacity_error(struct scsi_disk *sdkp, struct scsi_device *sdp,
sdkp->capacity = 0; /* unknown mapped to zero - as usual */
}
+/*
+ * Check whether or not logical_to_sectors(sdp, lba) will overflow.
+ */
+static bool lba_too_large(u64 lba, u32 logical_block_size)
+{
+ int shift = sizeof(sector_t) * 8 + 9 - ilog2(logical_block_size);
+
+ return shift >= 0 && shift < 64 && lba >= (1ULL << shift);
+}
+
#define RC16_LEN 32
#if RC16_LEN > SD_BUF_SIZE
#error RC16_LEN must not be more than SD_BUF_SIZE
@@ -2154,7 +2164,7 @@ static int read_capacity_16(struct scsi_disk *sdkp, struct scsi_device *sdp,
return -ENODEV;
}
- if ((sizeof(sdkp->capacity) == 4) && (lba >= 0xffffffffULL)) {
+ if (lba_too_large(lba + 1, sector_size)) {
sd_printk(KERN_ERR, sdkp, "Too big for this kernel. Use a "
"kernel compiled with support for large block "
"devices.\n");
@@ -2243,7 +2253,7 @@ static int read_capacity_10(struct scsi_disk *sdkp, struct scsi_device *sdp,
return sector_size;
}
- if ((sizeof(sdkp->capacity) == 4) && (lba == 0xffffffff)) {
+ if (lba_too_large(lba + 1ULL, sector_size)) {
sd_printk(KERN_ERR, sdkp, "Too big for this kernel. Use a "
"kernel compiled with support for large block "
"devices.\n");
--
2.11.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-27 19:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-02-27 15:22 [PATCH] sd: close hole in > 2T device rejection when !CONFIG_LBDAF Steven J. Magnani
2017-02-27 16:13 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-02-27 17:13 ` Steve Magnani
2017-02-27 18:57 ` Bart Van Assche [this message]
2017-02-28 3:18 ` Martin K. Petersen
2017-02-28 13:53 ` Steve Magnani
2017-04-04 23:35 ` Martin K. Petersen
2017-04-04 23:54 ` Bart Van Assche
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=1488221849.2656.8.camel@sandisk.com \
--to=bart.vanassche@sandisk.com \
--cc=jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=steve.magnani@digidescorp.com \
--cc=steve@digidescorp.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