[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <877cf6mdqg.fsf@metaspace.dk>
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2024 14:07:19 +0200
From: Andreas Hindborg <nmi@...aspace.dk>
To: Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@...nel.org>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>, 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
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de> writes:
> On 6/1/24 18:01, Keith Busch wrote:
>> 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)
>>
> Can't we overload .contains() to check only power-of-2 values?
I think `contains` just compiles down to a simple bounds check. We have
to do both the bounds check and the power-of-2 check either way.
BR Andreas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists