[PATCH 5.8 087/255] block: virtio_blk: fix handling single range discard request

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxx>

[ Upstream commit af822aa68fbdf0a480a17462ed70232998127453 ]

1f23816b8eb8 ("virtio_blk: add discard and write zeroes support") starts
to support multi-range discard for virtio-blk. However, the virtio-blk
disk may report max discard segment as 1, at least that is exactly what
qemu is doing.

So far, block layer switches to normal request merge if max discard segment
limit is 1, and multiple bios can be merged to single segment. This way may
cause memory corruption in virtblk_setup_discard_write_zeroes().

Fix the issue by handling single max discard segment in straightforward
way.

Fixes: 1f23816b8eb8 ("virtio_blk: add discard and write zeroes support")
Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
Cc: Changpeng Liu <changpeng.liu@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Daniel Verkamp <dverkamp@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
 drivers/block/virtio_blk.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++--------
 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
index 980df853ee497..99991b6a6f0ed 100644
--- a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
+++ b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
@@ -126,16 +126,31 @@ static int virtblk_setup_discard_write_zeroes(struct request *req, bool unmap)
 	if (!range)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 
-	__rq_for_each_bio(bio, req) {
-		u64 sector = bio->bi_iter.bi_sector;
-		u32 num_sectors = bio->bi_iter.bi_size >> SECTOR_SHIFT;
-
-		range[n].flags = cpu_to_le32(flags);
-		range[n].num_sectors = cpu_to_le32(num_sectors);
-		range[n].sector = cpu_to_le64(sector);
-		n++;
+	/*
+	 * Single max discard segment means multi-range discard isn't
+	 * supported, and block layer only runs contiguity merge like
+	 * normal RW request. So we can't reply on bio for retrieving
+	 * each range info.
+	 */
+	if (queue_max_discard_segments(req->q) == 1) {
+		range[0].flags = cpu_to_le32(flags);
+		range[0].num_sectors = cpu_to_le32(blk_rq_sectors(req));
+		range[0].sector = cpu_to_le64(blk_rq_pos(req));
+		n = 1;
+	} else {
+		__rq_for_each_bio(bio, req) {
+			u64 sector = bio->bi_iter.bi_sector;
+			u32 num_sectors = bio->bi_iter.bi_size >> SECTOR_SHIFT;
+
+			range[n].flags = cpu_to_le32(flags);
+			range[n].num_sectors = cpu_to_le32(num_sectors);
+			range[n].sector = cpu_to_le64(sector);
+			n++;
+		}
 	}
 
+	WARN_ON_ONCE(n != segments);
+
 	req->special_vec.bv_page = virt_to_page(range);
 	req->special_vec.bv_offset = offset_in_page(range);
 	req->special_vec.bv_len = sizeof(*range) * segments;
-- 
2.25.1