linux-kernel - [136/146] brd: handle on-demand devices correctly

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]

Message-Id: <20110601080459.147804451@blue.kroah.org>
Date:	Wed, 01 Jun 2011 17:01:12 +0900
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org
Cc:	stable-review@...nel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>,
	Laurent Vivier <Laurent.Vivier@...l.net>,
	Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>
Subject: [136/146] brd: handle on-demand devices correctly

2.6.38-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let us know.

------------------

From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>

commit af46566885a373b0a526932484cd8fef8de7b598 upstream.

When finding or allocating a ram disk device, brd_probe() did not take
partition numbers into account so that it can result to a different
device. Consider following example (I set CONFIG_BLK_DEV_RAM_COUNT=4
for simplicity) :

$ sudo modprobe brd max_part=15
$ ls -l /dev/ram*
brw-rw---- 1 root disk 1,  0 2011-05-25 15:41 /dev/ram0
brw-rw---- 1 root disk 1, 16 2011-05-25 15:41 /dev/ram1
brw-rw---- 1 root disk 1, 32 2011-05-25 15:41 /dev/ram2
brw-rw---- 1 root disk 1, 48 2011-05-25 15:41 /dev/ram3
$ sudo mknod /dev/ram4 b 1 64
$ sudo dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/ram4 bs=4k count=256
256+0 records in
256+0 records out
1048576 bytes (1.0 MB) copied, 0.00215578 s, 486 MB/s
namhyung@...nhard:linux$ ls -l /dev/ram*
brw-rw---- 1 root disk 1,    0 2011-05-25 15:41 /dev/ram0
brw-rw---- 1 root disk 1,   16 2011-05-25 15:41 /dev/ram1
brw-rw---- 1 root disk 1,   32 2011-05-25 15:41 /dev/ram2
brw-rw---- 1 root disk 1,   48 2011-05-25 15:41 /dev/ram3
brw-r--r-- 1 root root 1,   64 2011-05-25 15:45 /dev/ram4
brw-rw---- 1 root disk 1, 1024 2011-05-25 15:44 /dev/ram64

After this patch, /dev/ram4 - instead of /dev/ram64 - was
accessed correctly.

In addition, 'range' passed to blk_register_region() should
include all range of dev_t that RAMDISK_MAJOR can address.
It does not need to be limited by partition numbers unless
'rd_nr' param was specified.

Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...il.com>
Cc: Laurent Vivier <Laurent.Vivier@...l.net>
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>

---
 drivers/block/brd.c |    8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

--- a/drivers/block/brd.c
+++ b/drivers/block/brd.c
@@ -552,7 +552,7 @@ static struct kobject *brd_probe(dev_t d
 	struct kobject *kobj;
 
 	mutex_lock(&brd_devices_mutex);
-	brd = brd_init_one(dev & MINORMASK);
+	brd = brd_init_one(MINOR(dev) >> part_shift);
 	kobj = brd ? get_disk(brd->brd_disk) : ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
 	mutex_unlock(&brd_devices_mutex);
 
@@ -593,10 +593,10 @@ static int __init brd_init(void)
 
 	if (rd_nr) {
 		nr = rd_nr;
-		range = rd_nr;
+		range = rd_nr << part_shift;
 	} else {
 		nr = CONFIG_BLK_DEV_RAM_COUNT;
-		range = 1UL << (MINORBITS - part_shift);
+		range = 1UL << MINORBITS;
 	}
 
 	if (register_blkdev(RAMDISK_MAJOR, "ramdisk"))
@@ -635,7 +635,7 @@ static void __exit brd_exit(void)
 	unsigned long range;
 	struct brd_device *brd, *next;
 
-	range = rd_nr ? rd_nr :  1UL << (MINORBITS - part_shift);
+	range = rd_nr ? rd_nr << part_shift : 1UL << MINORBITS;
 
 	list_for_each_entry_safe(brd, next, &brd_devices, brd_list)
 		brd_del_one(brd);


--
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/