linux-kernel - Re: kernel BUG at ide-cd.c:1726 in 2.6.24-03863-g0ba6c33 && -g8561b089

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:	Fri, 1 Feb 2008 19:29:09 +0100
From:	Borislav Petkov <petkovbb@...glemail.com>
To:	Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@...jp.nec.com>
Cc:	jens.axboe@...cle.com, nai.xia@...il.com, rdreier@...co.com,
	bzolnier@...il.com, flo@...822.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	j-nomura@...jp.nec.com, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: kernel BUG at ide-cd.c:1726 in 2.6.24-03863-g0ba6c33 &&
	-g8561b089

On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 12:39:27PM -0500, Kiyoshi Ueda wrote:

<snip>

> > > end_that_request_last() is not called when __blk_end_reuqest()
> > > returns 1.  Then, the issuer isn't waken up.
> > > So I think the BUG() or error messages should be there.
> > 
> > you mean, end_that_request_last() isn't called when __end_that_request_first()
> > returns an error and this is the case only for fs and pc requests.
> > Otherwise it _is_ called, thus simulating somewhat the previous behavior.
> > However, we never BUG()'ged on residual byte counts before and
> > this driver has been in the kernel tree for ages, so what puzzles
> > me now is how is BUG()'ing here better than before and shouldn't we
> > simply issue a warning instead of killing the interrupt handler...
> 
> The Jens' patch passes the residual byte counts to __blk_end_request(),
> so __end_that_reqeust_first() should never return 1 and we should never
> BUG() on the residual byte counts, unless inconsistency happens such as
> the size of remaining bios is bigger than the residual byte counts.

yep.

> So if __blk_end_request() returns 1 even with the Jens' patch,
> it means that the block layer or the driver really have a bug.
> And then, the request and the bios could leak or the issuer
> would wait forever because end_that_request_last() isn't called.
> 
> The previous behavior might ignore such inconsistency and leak only
> the bios because it was calling end_that_request_last() anyway.
> I would like to BUG() in such cases personally, but I don't object
> strongly if you prefer not to BUG().

BUG() is definitely what we should do here to catch this case of sizeof(bios) >
rq->data_len. Putting a brown paper bag over the issue will never get it fixed
if it really leaks bios. Thanks for clarifying that.

By the way, shouldn't we be doing a little branch prediction here:

diff --git a/drivers/ide/ide-cd.c b/drivers/ide/ide-cd.c
index 74c6087..bee05a3 100644
--- a/drivers/ide/ide-cd.c
+++ b/drivers/ide/ide-cd.c
@@ -1722,7 +1722,7 @@ static ide_startstop_t cdrom_newpc_intr(ide_drive_t *drive)
         */
        if ((stat & DRQ_STAT) == 0) {
                spin_lock_irqsave(&ide_lock, flags);
-               if (__blk_end_request(rq, 0, 0))
+               if (unlikely(__blk_end_request(rq, 0, rq->data_len)))
                        BUG();
                HWGROUP(drive)->rq = NULL;
                spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ide_lock, flags);


-- 
Regards/Gruß,
    Boris.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/