On 9/12/19 7:20 PM, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote:
> On 09/12/2019 03:09 PM, André Almeida wrote:
>> Hello Matthew,
>>
>> On 9/12/19 1:19 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 11:46:36AM -0300, André Almeida wrote:
>>>>
>>>> -static int nr_devices = 1;
>>>> +static unsigned int nr_devices = 1;
>>>> module_param(nr_devices, int, 0444);
>>>
>>> ^^^ you forgot to change the module_param to match
>>>
>>>> + if (!nr_devices) {
>>>> + pr_err("null_blk: invalid number of devices\n");
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> + }
>>>
>>> I don't think this is necessary.
>>>
>>
>> Could you explain why you don't think is necessary? As I see, the module
>> can't be used without any /dev/nullb* device, so why we should load it?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> André
>>
>
> I think Matthew is right here. I think module can be loaded with
> nr_devices=0.
>
> Did you get a chance to test nr_device=0 condition ?
>
Yes. It says "module loaded" and lsmod shows that it is loaded indeed.
But you don't have any /dev/nullb*, so you can't do much with the module.
With this patch, it refuses to load the module.
> Also, did you get a chance to test this patch with all the
> possible conditions ?
>
I did not tested with all possible conditions, but I tested with the
following ones:
* Using a negative number of devices:
- Previously, it would alloc and add a huge number of devices until the
system gets out of memory
- With module_param as uint, it will throw a "invalid for parameter
`nr_devices'" and refuse to load
* Using a range of values (1, 10, 100, 1000):
- It will works as expect, creating some /dev/nullbX accordingly with
your parameter. Works fine with and without this patch.
