Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 11 Oct 2021 13:40:41 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc:     Xie Yongji <xieyongji@bytedance.com>, jasowang@redhat.com,
        stefanha@redhat.com, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] virtio-blk: Add validation for block size in config
 space
Message-ID: <20211011114041.GB16138@lst.de>
References: <20210809101609.148-1-xieyongji@bytedance.com> <20211004112623-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20211005062359-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20211005062359-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 06:42:43AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Stefan also pointed out this duplicates the logic from 
> 
>         if (blksize < 512 || blksize > PAGE_SIZE || !is_power_of_2(blksize))
>                 return -EINVAL;
> 
> 
> and a bunch of other places.
> 
> 
> Would it be acceptable for blk layer to validate the input
> instead of having each driver do it's own thing?
> Maybe inside blk_queue_logical_block_size?

I'm pretty sure we want down that before.  Let's just add a helper
just for that check for now as part of this series.  Actually validating
in in blk_queue_logical_block_size seems like a good idea, but returning
errors from that has a long tail.