[PATCH 1/5] block: move discard checks into the ioctl handler

[Keith Busch]

On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 08:45:27AM -0600, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> @@ -95,6 +95,8 @@ static int compat_blkpg_ioctl(struct block_device *bdev,
>  static int blk_ioctl_discard(struct block_device *bdev, blk_mode_t mode,
>  		unsigned long arg)
>  {
> +	sector_t bs_mask = (bdev_logical_block_size(bdev) >> SECTOR_SHIFT) - 1;
> +	sector_t sector, nr_sects;
>  	uint64_t range[2];
>  	uint64_t start, len;
>  	struct inode *inode = bdev->bd_inode;
> @@ -105,18 +107,21 @@ static int blk_ioctl_discard(struct block_device *bdev, blk_mode_t mode,
>  
>  	if (!bdev_max_discard_sectors(bdev))
>  		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> +	if (bdev_read_only(bdev))
> +		return -EPERM;
>  
>  	if (copy_from_user(range, (void __user *)arg, sizeof(range)))
>  		return -EFAULT;
>  
>  	start = range[0];
>  	len = range[1];
> +	sector = start >> SECTOR_SHIFT;
> +	nr_sects = len >> SECTOR_SHIFT;
>  
> -	if (start & 511)
> +	if (!nr_sects)
>  		return -EINVAL;
> -	if (len & 511)
> +	if ((sector | nr_sects) & bs_mask)
>  		return -EINVAL;
> -
>  	if (start + len > bdev_nr_bytes(bdev))
>  		return -EINVAL;

Maybe you want to shift lower bytes out of consideration, but it is
different, right? For example, if I call this ioctl with start=5 and
len=555, it would return EINVAL, but your change would let it succeed
the same as if start=0, len=512.