Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-199656-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 13:47:17 -0600
From: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
To: Andreas Hindborg <nmi@metaspace.dk>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@samsung.com>,
	Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
	John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>,
	Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] null_blk: fix validation of block size
Message-ID: <Zl4dxaQgPbw19Irk@kbusch-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
References: <20240603192645.977968-1-nmi@metaspace.dk>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240603192645.977968-1-nmi@metaspace.dk>

On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 09:26:45PM +0200, Andreas Hindborg wrote:
> -	dev->blocksize = round_down(dev->blocksize, 512);
> -	dev->blocksize = clamp_t(unsigned int, dev->blocksize, 512, 4096);
> +	if (blk_validate_block_size(dev->blocksize) != 0) {
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +	}

No need for the { } brackets for a one-line if.

It also looks like a good idea if this check was just done in
blk_validate_limits() so that each driver doesn't have to do their own
checks. That block function is kind of recent though. Your patch here
looks fine if you want stable back-ports, but I haven't heard any
complaints till recently :)