[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH 02/10] block: virtio-blk: check logical block size



On 2020/07/21 19:54, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> Linux kernel only supports logical block sizes which are power of two,
> at least 512 bytes and no more that PAGE_SIZE.
> 
> Check this instead of crashing later on.
> 
> Note that there is no need to check physical block size since it is
> only a hint, and virtio-blk already only supports power of two values.
> 
> Bugzilla link: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1664619
> 
> Signed-off-by: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>
> ---
>  drivers/block/virtio_blk.c | 15 +++++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> index 980df853ee497..b5ee87cba00ed 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> @@ -809,10 +809,18 @@ static int virtblk_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
>  	err = virtio_cread_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_BLK_F_BLK_SIZE,
>  				   struct virtio_blk_config, blk_size,
>  				   &blk_size);
> -	if (!err)
> +	if (!err) {
> +		if (!blk_is_valid_logical_block_size(blk_size)) {
> +			dev_err(&vdev->dev,
> +				"%s failure: invalid logical block size %d\n",
> +				__func__, blk_size);
> +			err = -EINVAL;
> +			goto out_cleanup_queue;
> +		}
>  		blk_queue_logical_block_size(q, blk_size);
> -	else
> +	} else {
>  		blk_size = queue_logical_block_size(q);
> +	}
>  
>  	/* Use topology information if available */
>  	err = virtio_cread_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_BLK_F_TOPOLOGY,
> @@ -872,6 +880,9 @@ static int virtblk_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
>  	device_add_disk(&vdev->dev, vblk->disk, virtblk_attr_groups);
>  	return 0;
>  
> +out_cleanup_queue:
> +	blk_cleanup_queue(vblk->disk->queue);
> +	vblk->disk->queue = NULL;
>  out_free_tags:
>  	blk_mq_free_tag_set(&vblk->tag_set);
>  out_put_disk:
> 

Looks good to me.

Reviewed-by: Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@wdc.com>

-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research


Reply to: