[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH] iscsi: fix assertion in is_sector_request_lun_a

From: Peter Lieven
Subject: Re: [Qemu-block] [PATCH] iscsi: fix assertion in is_sector_request_lun_aligned
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 18:19:56 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0

Am 23.06.2016 um 17:50 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
On 20/06/2016 11:24, Peter Lieven wrote:
Commit 94d047a added an assertion the the request alignment check.
This introduced 2 issues:
  a) A off-by-one error since a request of BDRV_REQUEST_MAX_SECTORS
     is actually allowed.
  b) The bdrv_get_block_status call in the read path to check the allocation
     status requests up to INT_MAX sectors which triggers the assertion.

Fixes: 94d047a35bf663e28f8fef137544d8ea78165add
Signed-off-by: Peter Lieven <address@hidden>
  block/iscsi.c | 5 +++--
  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/block/iscsi.c b/block/iscsi.c
index 7e78ade..9bb5ff6 100644
--- a/block/iscsi.c
+++ b/block/iscsi.c
@@ -417,7 +417,7 @@ static bool is_byte_request_lun_aligned(int64_t offset, int 
  static bool is_sector_request_lun_aligned(int64_t sector_num, int nb_sectors,
                                            IscsiLun *iscsilun)
-    assert(nb_sectors < BDRV_REQUEST_MAX_SECTORS);
+    assert(nb_sectors <= BDRV_REQUEST_MAX_SECTORS);
      return is_byte_request_lun_aligned(sector_num << BDRV_SECTOR_BITS,
                                         nb_sectors << BDRV_SECTOR_BITS,
@@ -661,7 +661,8 @@ static int coroutine_fn iscsi_co_readv(BlockDriverState *bs,
          int64_t ret;
          int pnum;
          BlockDriverState *file;
-        ret = iscsi_co_get_block_status(bs, sector_num, INT_MAX, &pnum, &file);
+        ret = iscsi_co_get_block_status(bs, sector_num,
+                                        BDRV_REQUEST_MAX_SECTORS, &pnum, 
          if (ret < 0) {
              return ret;

Hi, I've queued this patch.  Can you rebase the allocation map patch on
top of master + this one?

will do.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]