[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a01cedbc-ca1a-3e3d-cf2c-3e995c63f793@csail.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 16:56:32 -0800
From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa@...il.mit.edu>
To: logang@...tatee.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, jlayton@...chiereds.net, bfields@...ldses.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa@...il.mit.edu>
Subject: Change in register_blkdev() behavior
Hi,
Before commit 133d55cdb2f "block: order /proc/devices by major number",
if register_blkdev() was called with major = [1..UINT_MAX], it used to
succeed (provided the requested major number was actually free).
However, while fixing the ordering in /proc/devices, commit 133d55cdb2f
also added this change:
@@ -309,6 +309,14 @@ int register_blkdev(unsigned int major, const char *name)
ret = major;
}
+ if (major >= BLKDEV_MAJOR_MAX) {
+ pr_err("register_blkdev: major requested (%d) is greater than the maximum (%d) for %s\n",
+ major, BLKDEV_MAJOR_MAX, name);
+
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ goto out;
+ }
+
p = kmalloc(sizeof(struct blk_major_name), GFP_KERNEL);
if (p == NULL) {
ret = -ENOMEM;
So, after this commit, calls to register_blkdev() fail if the requested
major number is >= 512 (BLKDEV_MAJOR_MAX). I'm wondering if this was an
intentional change or not, as it wasn't explicitly called out in the
changelog (and the comment on top of register_blkdev() describing its
inputs seems quite out-of-date). This also breaks LTP testcase
block_dev/tc05, which tests for edge-cases and expects register_blkdev()
to succeed with major=UINT_MAX.
If the restriction on the major number was intentional, perhaps we
should get the LTP testcase modified for kernel versions >= 4.14.
Otherwise, we should fix register_blkdev to preserve the old behavior.
(I guess the same thing applies to commit 8a932f73e5b "char_dev: order
/proc/devices by major number" as well).
Thoughts?
Regards,
Srivatsa
Powered by blists - more mailing lists