On 7/11/25 5:09 PM, John Garry wrote:
> Currently we just ensure that a non-zero value in chunk_sectors aligns
> with any atomic write boundary, as the blk boundary functionality uses
> both these values.
>
> However it is also improper to have atomic write unit max > chunk_sectors
> (for non-zero chunk_sectors), as this would lead to splitting of atomic
> write bios (which is disallowed).
>
> Sanitize atomic write unit max against chunk_sectors to avoid any
> potential problems.
>
> Fixes: d00eea91deaf3 ("block: Add extra checks in blk_validate_atomic_write_limits()")
> Reviewed-by: Nilay Shroff <nilay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.g.garry@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> block/blk-settings.c | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/block/blk-settings.c b/block/blk-settings.c
> index a000daafbfb48..a2c089167174e 100644
> --- a/block/blk-settings.c
> +++ b/block/blk-settings.c
> @@ -180,6 +180,7 @@ static void blk_atomic_writes_update_limits(struct queue_limits *lim)
>
> static void blk_validate_atomic_write_limits(struct queue_limits *lim)
> {
> + unsigned long long chunk_bytes = lim->chunk_sectors << SECTOR_SHIFT;
Don't you need to cast to a 64-bits "lim->chunk_sectors" here ?
> unsigned int boundary_sectors;
>
> if (!(lim->features & BLK_FEAT_ATOMIC_WRITES))
> @@ -202,6 +203,10 @@ static void blk_validate_atomic_write_limits(struct queue_limits *lim)
> lim->atomic_write_hw_max))
> goto unsupported;
>
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(chunk_bytes &&
> + lim->atomic_write_hw_unit_max > chunk_bytes))
> + goto unsupported;
> +
> boundary_sectors = lim->atomic_write_hw_boundary >> SECTOR_SHIFT;
>
> if (boundary_sectors) {
--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research
