linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scsi: ips: fix missing break in switch

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 16 Oct 2018 21:19:20 -0400
From:   "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
To:     Finn Thain <fthain@...egraphics.com.au>
Cc:     "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
        Adaptec OEM Raid Solutions <aacraid@...rosemi.com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: ips: fix missing break in switch

Finn,

> This looks wrong to me. I think you've just prevented all START STOP
> commands sent to logical volumes from reaching
>
>         return ((*ha->func.issue) (ha, scb));
>
> I think a better patch is to add a "fall though" comment not a "break"
> statement. (I no longer have access to a ServeRAID board so I can't
> test.)

When I looked at this a few days ago, it seemed that the fallthrough to
the TUR/INQUIRY case statement was accidental and that the intent was to
quickly complete START_STOP unit (which probably doesn't make much sense
for a RAID device anyway).

See the case statements above for another fast exit scenario.

Sadly I have no way to test this. It just stuck out like a false
positive in Gustavo's fallthrough markup patch.

-- 
Martin K. Petersen	Oracle Linux Engineering