linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V1 7/7] Drivers: scsi: storvsc: Increase the value of STORVSC_MAX_IO

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:	Thu, 16 May 2013 16:55:28 +0300
From:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:	KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>
Cc:	"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devel@...uxdriverproject.org" <devel@...uxdriverproject.org>,
	"ohering@...e.com" <ohering@...e.com>,
	"jbottomley@...allels.com" <jbottomley@...allels.com>,
	"hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>,
	"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"apw@...onical.com" <apw@...onical.com>,
	"jasowang@...hat.com" <jasowang@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 7/7] Drivers: scsi: storvsc: Increase the value of
 STORVSC_MAX_IO_REQUESTS

On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 01:37:41PM +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dan Carpenter [mailto:dan.carpenter@...cle.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 8:02 AM
> > To: KY Srinivasan
> > Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> > devel@...uxdriverproject.org; ohering@...e.com; jbottomley@...allels.com;
> > hch@...radead.org; linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org; apw@...onical.com;
> > jasowang@...hat.com
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH V1 7/7] Drivers: scsi: storvsc: Increase the value of
> > STORVSC_MAX_IO_REQUESTS
> > 
> > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 05:21:19AM -0700, K. Y. Srinivasan wrote:
> > > Increase the value of STORVSC_MAX_IO_REQUESTS to 200 requests. The
> > current
> > > ringbuffer size can support this higher value.
> > >
> > 
> > The ringbuffer size is a module parameter so it's odd to talk about
> > the "current" size.
> 
> While the ringbuffer size is a module parameter; there is a default value. The current size refers to the default. 
> Your comment applies to the current value (of 128) as well in that it is possible for somebody to load this
> driver  with a ringbuffer size that could not support  the value of 128. If this  is the case, we fail the load.
> This safety check continues to exist. 

The issue is there in the original code, true.

Would the right fix be to add some sanity checks in module_init()?

regards,
dan carpenter

--
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/