linux-kernel - Re: blk_validate_limits validation of block size (was Re: [PATCH v2] null

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZoVP5NZhCmMH6qBp@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 06:19:32 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: blk_validate_limits validation of block size (was Re: [PATCH v2]
 null_blk: fix validation of block size)

On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 01:20:26PM +0100, John Garry wrote:
> So if we stop validating the limits in a., there is a user-visible change in
> behaviour (as we stop rejecting invalid limits from the NBD_SET_BLKSIZE
> ioctl).
> 
> We could add a "dryrun" option to queue_limits_commit_update() (and call
> that instead of blk_validate_block_size(), which is effectively the same as
> calling blk_validate_block_size()). Or we can keep
> nbd as the only blk_validate_limits() user (outside the block layer).

I'd just keep the extra external blk_validate_block_size call in nbd.c.

Maybe add a comment to the blk_validate_block_size declaration that
drivers should not bother with it as it's already done by
blk_validate_limits.