[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <871q5goaz0.fsf@metaspace.dk>
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2024 18:59:31 +0200
From: Andreas Hindborg <nmi@...aspace.dk>
To: Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Damien
Le Moal <dlemoal@...nel.org>, Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>, Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>, Andreas
Hindborg <a.hindborg@...sung.com>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, Wedson Almeida Filho
<wedsonaf@...il.com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo
<gary@...yguo.net>, Björn Roy Baron
<bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>, Benno
Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>, Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
Chaitanya Kulkarni <chaitanyak@...dia.com>, Luis Chamberlain
<mcgrof@...nel.org>, Yexuan Yang <1182282462@...t.edu.cn>, Sergio
González Collado <sergio.collado@...il.com>, Joel
Granados
<j.granados@...sung.com>, "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)"
<kernel@...kajraghav.com>, Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@...sung.com>, Niklas
Cassel <Niklas.Cassel@....com>, Philipp Stanner <pstanner@...hat.com>,
Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>, Johannes Thumshirn
<Johannes.Thumshirn@....com>, Matias Bjørling
<m@...rling.me>, open list
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org"
<rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org>, "lsf-pc@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<lsf-pc@...ts.linux-foundation.org>, "gost.dev@...sung.com"
<gost.dev@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] rust: block: add rnull, Rust null_blk
implementation
Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org> writes:
> On Sat, Jun 01, 2024 at 05:36:20PM +0200, Andreas Hindborg wrote:
>> Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org> writes:
>>
>> > On Sat, Jun 01, 2024 at 03:40:04PM +0200, Andreas Hindborg wrote:
>> >> +impl kernel::Module for NullBlkModule {
>> >> + fn init(_module: &'static ThisModule) -> Result<Self> {
>> >> + pr_info!("Rust null_blk loaded\n");
>> >> + let tagset = Arc::pin_init(TagSet::try_new(1, 256, 1), flags::GFP_KERNEL)?;
>> >> +
>> >> + let disk = {
>> >> + let block_size: u16 = 4096;
>> >> + if block_size % 512 != 0 || !(512..=4096).contains(&block_size) {
>> >> + return Err(kernel::error::code::EINVAL);
>> >> + }
>> >
>> > You've set block_size to the literal 4096, then validate its value
>> > immediately after? Am I missing some way this could ever be invalid?
>>
>> Good catch. It is because I have a patch in the outbound queue that allows setting
>> the block size via a module parameter. The module parameter patch is not
>> upstream yet. Once I have that up, I will send the patch with the block
>> size config.
>>
>> Do you think it is OK to have this redundancy? It would only be for a
>> few cycles.
>
> It's fine, just wondering why it's there. But it also allows values like
> 1536 and 3584, which are not valid block sizes, so I think you want the
> check to be:
>
> if !(512..=4096).contains(&block_size) || ((block_size & (block_size - 1)) != 0)
Right, that makes sense. I modeled it after the C null_blk validation
code in `null_validate_conf`. It contains this:
dev->blocksize = round_down(dev->blocksize, 512);
dev->blocksize = clamp_t(unsigned int, dev->blocksize, 512, 4096);
That would have the same semantics, right? I guess I'll try to make a
device with a 1536 block size and see what happens.
BR Andreas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists