On 1/10/18 9:18 AM, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
> Regular block device writes go through blkdev_write_iter(), which does
> bdev_read_only(), while zeroout/discard/etc requests are never checked,
> both userspace- and kernel-triggered.  Add a generic catch-all check to
> generic_make_request_checks() to actually enforce ioctl(BLKROSET) and
> set_disk_ro(), which is used by quite a few drivers for things like
> snapshots, read-only backing files/images, etc.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ilya Dryomov <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <[email protected]>
> ---
>  block/blk-core.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c
> index f843ae4f858d..d132bec4a266 100644
> --- a/block/blk-core.c
> +++ b/block/blk-core.c
> @@ -2123,6 +2123,20 @@ static inline int bio_check_eod(struct bio *bio, 
> unsigned int nr_sectors)
>       return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static inline bool bio_check_ro(struct bio *bio)
> +{
> +     struct hd_struct *p;
> +     bool ret = false;
> +
> +     rcu_read_lock();
> +     p = __disk_get_part(bio->bi_disk, bio->bi_partno);
> +     if (!p || (p->policy && op_is_write(bio_op(bio))))
> +             ret = true;
> +     rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> +     return ret;
> +}> +
>  static noinline_for_stack bool
>  generic_make_request_checks(struct bio *bio)
>  {
> @@ -2145,11 +2159,18 @@ generic_make_request_checks(struct bio *bio)
>               goto end_io;
>       }
>  
> +     if (unlikely(bio_check_ro(bio))) {
> +             printk(KERN_ERR
> +                    "generic_make_request: Trying to write "
> +                     "to read-only block-device %s (partno %d)\n",
> +                     bio_devname(bio, b), bio->bi_partno);
> +             goto end_io;
> +     }

It's yet another check that adds part lookup and rcu lock/unlock in that
path. Can we combine some of them? Make this part of the remap?  This
overhead impacts every IO, let's not bloat it more than absolutely
necessary.

-- 
Jens Axboe


-- 
Jens Axboe

Reply via email to