From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34352) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UwsjG-0007hM-62 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 07:38:39 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UwsjE-0001BX-GP for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 07:38:38 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:32440) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UwsjE-0001B8-8j for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 07:38:36 -0400 Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 13:38:29 +0200 From: Kevin Wolf Message-ID: <20130710113829.GL3898@dhcp-200-207.str.redhat.com> References: <1372338695-411-1-git-send-email-pl@kamp.de> <1372338695-411-12-git-send-email-pl@kamp.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1372338695-411-12-git-send-email-pl@kamp.de> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCHv2 11/11] iscsi: assert that sectors are aligned to LUN blocksize List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Lieven Cc: pbonzini@redhat.com, ronniesahlberg@gmail.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, stefanha@redhat.com Am 27.06.2013 um 15:11 hat Peter Lieven geschrieben: > if the blocksize of an iSCSI LUN is bigger than the BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE > it is possible that sector_num or nb_sectors are not correctly > alligned. > > to avoid corruption we fail requests which are misaligned. > > Signed-off-by: Peter Lieven > --- > block/iscsi.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/block/iscsi.c b/block/iscsi.c > index 0567b46..bff2e1f 100644 > --- a/block/iscsi.c > +++ b/block/iscsi.c > @@ -298,6 +298,13 @@ static int64_t sector_lun2qemu(int64_t sector, IscsiLun *iscsilun) > return sector * iscsilun->block_size / BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE; > } > > +static int64_t is_request_lun_aligned(int64_t sector_num, int nb_sectors, > + IscsiLun *iscsilun) This should certainly return bool instead of int64_t? > +{ > + return ((sector_num * BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE) % iscsilun->block_size || > + (nb_sectors * BDRV_SECTOR_SIZE) % iscsilun->block_size) ? 0 : 1; 'x ? 0 : 1' is usually written '!x'. Kevin