linux-kernel - Re: e827091cb1 "block: merge: get the 1st and last bvec via helpers" broken

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:	Sat, 12 Mar 2016 05:36:12 -0900
From:	Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>
To:	Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
Cc:	Ming Lin <mlin@...nel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: e827091cb1 "block: merge: get the 1st and last bvec via helpers"
 broken

On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 10:25:48PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 05:02:56 -0900
> Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> > Here's the output of the patch below:
> > 
> > generic/036 11s ...run fstests generic/036 at 2016-03-12 13:58:21
> > end 4096 0 ffffea0001d611c0 end2 1024 0 ffffea0001d611c0
> > len 1024 offset 0 page ffffea0001d611c0
> > KGDB: Waiting for remote debugger
> > 
> > Your code gives a biovec with bv_len of 4096, the old code gives a biovec with
> > bv_len of 1024 (and then we dump every biovec, we see that the bio had only a
> > single biovec that did indeed have bv_len == 1024).
> 
> I guess we shouldn't have optimized for the case of non-cloned bio, could you
> try the following patch?
> 
> --
> diff --git a/include/linux/bio.h b/include/linux/bio.h
> index 1e7248f..4abc129 100644
> --- a/include/linux/bio.h
> +++ b/include/linux/bio.h
> @@ -267,11 +267,6 @@ static inline void bio_get_last_bvec(struct bio *bio, struct bio_vec *bv)
>  	struct bvec_iter iter = bio->bi_iter;
>  	int idx;
>  
> -	if (!bio_flagged(bio, BIO_CLONED)) {
> -		*bv = bio->bi_io_vec[bio->bi_vcnt - 1];
> -		return;
> -	}
> -
>  	if (unlikely(!bio_multiple_segments(bio))) {
>  		*bv = bio_iovec(bio);
>  		return;
> 
> Thanks,
> Ming

Yes, that's it.

!BIO_CLONED is _not_ a guarantee that bi_size doesn't straddle the middle of a
bvec - bcachefs was hitting this by bouncing a bio that had already been split
(which can happen elsewhere in the kernel...) but there's other (perfectly
legal) ways it can happen.

I would still strongly suggest reverting the patch for 4.5 and resubmitting
during the next merge window.