@@ -62,6 +62,9 @@
| UBLK_F_USER_COPY \
| UBLK_F_ZONED)
+#define UBLK_F_ALL_RECOVERY_FLAGS (UBLK_F_USER_RECOVERY \
+ | UBLK_F_USER_RECOVERY_REISSUE)
+
/* All UBLK_PARAM_TYPE_* should be included here */
#define UBLK_PARAM_TYPE_ALL \
(UBLK_PARAM_TYPE_BASIC | UBLK_PARAM_TYPE_DISCARD | \
@@ -2373,6 +2376,14 @@ static int ublk_ctrl_add_dev(struct io_uring_cmd *cmd)
else if (!(info.flags & UBLK_F_UNPRIVILEGED_DEV))
return -EPERM;
+ /* forbid nonsense combinations of recovery flags */
+ if ((info.flags & UBLK_F_USER_RECOVERY_REISSUE) &&
+ !(info.flags & UBLK_F_USER_RECOVERY)) {
+ pr_warn("%s: invalid recovery flags %llx\n", __func__,
+ info.flags & UBLK_F_ALL_RECOVERY_FLAGS);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
+
/*
* unprivileged device can't be trusted, but RECOVERY and
* RECOVERY_REISSUE still may hang error handling, so can't
Setting UBLK_F_USER_RECOVERY_REISSUE without also setting UBLK_F_USER_RECOVERY is currently silently equivalent to not setting any recovery flags at all, even though that's obviously not intended. Check for this case and fail add_dev (with a paranoid warning to aid debugging any program which might rely on the old behavior) with EINVAL if it is detected. Signed-off-by: Uday Shankar <ushankar@purestorage.com> --- Changes since v1 (https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/20240617194451.435445-2-ushankar@purestorage.com/): - Replace switch statement with if statement drivers/block/ublk_drv.c | 11 +++++++++++ 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)