Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 05/13] block: Switch to 64-bit bl.max_transfer

[Kevin Wolf]

Am 15.11.2018 um 03:03 hat Eric Blake geschrieben:
> This change has no semantic impact: all drivers either leave the
> value at 0 (no inherent 32-bit limit is still translated into
> fragmentation below 2G; see the previous patch for that audit), or
> set it to a value less than 2G.  However, switching to a larger
> type and enforcing the 2G cap at the block layer makes it easier
> to audit specific drivers for their robustness to larger sizing,
> by letting them specify a value larger than INT_MAX if they have
> been audited to be 64-bit clean.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <address@hidden>
> ---
>  include/block/block_int.h | 8 +++++---
>  block/io.c                | 7 +++++++
>  2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/block/block_int.h b/include/block/block_int.h
> index f605622216d..b19d94dac5f 100644
> --- a/include/block/block_int.h
> +++ b/include/block/block_int.h
> @@ -549,9 +549,11 @@ typedef struct BlockLimits {
> 
>      /* Maximal transfer length in bytes.  Need not be power of 2, but
>       * must be multiple of opt_transfer and bl.request_alignment, or 0
> -     * for no 32-bit limit.  For now, anything larger than INT_MAX is
> -     * clamped down. */
> -    uint32_t max_transfer;
> +     * for no 32-bit limit.  The block layer fragments all actions
> +     * below 2G, so setting this value to anything larger than INT_MAX
> +     * implies that the driver has been audited for 64-bit
> +     * cleanness. */
> +    uint64_t max_transfer;
> 
>      /* memory alignment, in bytes so that no bounce buffer is needed */
>      size_t min_mem_alignment;
> diff --git a/block/io.c b/block/io.c
> index 39d4e7a3ae1..4911a1123eb 100644
> --- a/block/io.c
> +++ b/block/io.c
> @@ -159,6 +159,13 @@ void bdrv_refresh_limits(BlockDriverState *bs, Error 
> **errp)
>      if (drv->bdrv_refresh_limits) {
>          drv->bdrv_refresh_limits(bs, errp);
>      }
> +
> +    /* Clamp max_transfer to 2G */
> +    if (bs->bl.max_transfer > UINT32_MAX) {

UINT32_MAX is 4G, not 2G.

Would it make more sense to make BDRV_REQUEST_MAX_BYTES the maximum
anyway? Allowing higher (but not too high) explicit values than what we
clamp to feels a bit odd.

BDRV_REQUEST_MAX_BYTES is probably also what drivers really expect
today.

> +        bs->bl.max_transfer = QEMU_ALIGN_DOWN(BDRV_REQUEST_MAX_BYTES,
> +                                              MAX(bs->bl.opt_transfer,
> +                                                  bs->bl.request_alignment));
> +    }
>  }

Kevin