Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-197962-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
From: Andreas Hindborg <nmi@metaspace.dk>
To: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,  Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,  Damien
 Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>,  Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
  Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>,  Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>,
  "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,  Andreas
 Hindborg <a.hindborg@samsung.com>,  Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
  Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,  Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>,
  Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@gmail.com>,  Wedson Almeida Filho
 <wedsonaf@gmail.com>,  Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,  Gary Guo
 <gary@garyguo.net>,  =?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B6rn?= Roy Baron
 <bjorn3_gh@protonmail.com>,  Benno
 Lossin <benno.lossin@proton.me>,  Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>,
  Chaitanya Kulkarni <chaitanyak@nvidia.com>,  Luis Chamberlain
 <mcgrof@kernel.org>,  Yexuan Yang <1182282462@bupt.edu.cn>,  Sergio
 =?utf-8?Q?Gonz=C3=A1lez?= Collado <sergio.collado@gmail.com>,  Joel
 Granados
 <j.granados@samsung.com>,  "Pankaj Raghav (Samsung)"
 <kernel@pankajraghav.com>,  Daniel Gomez <da.gomez@samsung.com>,  Niklas
 Cassel <Niklas.Cassel@wdc.com>,  Philipp Stanner <pstanner@redhat.com>,
  Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>,  Johannes Thumshirn
 <Johannes.Thumshirn@wdc.com>,  Matias =?utf-8?Q?Bj=C3=B8rling?=
 <m@bjorling.me>,  open list
 <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,  "rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org"
 <rust-for-linux@vger.kernel.org>,  "lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org"
 <lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org>,  "gost.dev@samsung.com"
 <gost.dev@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] rust: block: add rnull, Rust null_blk
 implementation
In-Reply-To: <ZltF5NvDnKFphcOo@kbusch-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com> (Keith Busch's
	message of "Sat, 1 Jun 2024 10:01:40 -0600")
References: <20240601134005.621714-1-nmi@metaspace.dk>
	<20240601134005.621714-3-nmi@metaspace.dk>
	<ZlsvHV6y4DEdC8ja@kbusch-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
	<875xusoetn.fsf@metaspace.dk>
	<ZltF5NvDnKFphcOo@kbusch-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2024 18:59:31 +0200
Message-ID: <871q5goaz0.fsf@metaspace.dk>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org> writes:

> On Sat, Jun 01, 2024 at 05:36:20PM +0200, Andreas Hindborg wrote:
>> Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.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