[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH 13/17] hw/block/nvme: make sure ncqr and nsqr is valid
From: |
Dmitry Fomichev |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH 13/17] hw/block/nvme: make sure ncqr and nsqr is valid |
Date: |
Fri, 3 Jul 2020 00:46:40 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Evolution 3.32.5 (3.32.5-1.fc30) |
Looks good,
Reviewed-by: Dmitry Fomichev <dmitry.fomichev@wdc.com>
On Mon, 2020-06-29 at 20:26 +0200, Klaus Jensen wrote:
> From: Klaus Jensen <k.jensen@samsung.com>
>
> 0xffff is not an allowed value for NCQR and NSQR in Set Features on
> Number of Queues.
>
> Signed-off-by: Klaus Jensen <k.jensen@samsung.com>
> Acked-by: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
> Reviewed-by: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>
> ---
> hw/block/nvme.c | 8 ++++++++
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/hw/block/nvme.c b/hw/block/nvme.c
> index a41665746d33..2279d8395aaa 100644
> --- a/hw/block/nvme.c
> +++ b/hw/block/nvme.c
> @@ -1257,6 +1257,14 @@ static uint16_t nvme_set_feature(NvmeCtrl *n, NvmeCmd
> *cmd, NvmeRequest *req)
> blk_set_enable_write_cache(n->conf.blk, dw11 & 1);
> break;
> case NVME_NUMBER_OF_QUEUES:
> + /*
> + * NVMe v1.3, Section 5.21.1.7: 0xffff is not an allowed value for
> NCQR
> + * and NSQR.
> + */
> + if ((dw11 & 0xffff) == 0xffff || ((dw11 >> 16) & 0xffff) == 0xffff) {
> + return NVME_INVALID_FIELD | NVME_DNR;
> + }
> +
> trace_pci_nvme_setfeat_numq((dw11 & 0xFFFF) + 1,
> ((dw11 >> 16) & 0xFFFF) + 1,
> n->params.max_ioqpairs,
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Re: [PATCH 13/17] hw/block/nvme: make sure ncqr and nsqr is valid,
Dmitry Fomichev <=