[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161103174250.ury2u5zbyi2tfyvt@linux-x5ow.site>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 18:42:50 +0100
From: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Steffen Maier <maier@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailinglist <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux SCSI Mailinglist <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Anil Gurumurthy <anil.gurumurthy@...gic.com>,
Sudarsana Kalluru <sudarsana.kalluru@...gic.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Tyrel Datwyler <tyreld@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Johannes Thumshirn <jth@...nel.org>,
James Smart <james.smart@...gotech.com>,
Dick Kennedy <dick.kennedy@...gotech.com>,
"supporter:QLOGIC QLA2XXX FC-SCSI DRIVER"
<qla2xxx-upstream@...gic.com>,
"open list:S390 ZFCP DRIVER" <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:LINUX FOR POWERPC (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)"
<linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"open list:FCOE SUBSYSTEM (libfc, libfcoe, fcoe)"
<fcoe-devel@...n-fcoe.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/16] scsi: don't use fc_bsg_job::request and
fc_bsg_job::reply directly
On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 08:17:51AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 09:38:21AM +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 05:55:11PM +0200, Steffen Maier wrote:
> > > Hm, still behaves for me like I reported for v2:
> > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=147637177902937&w=2
> >
> > Hi Steffen,
> >
> > Can you please try the following on top of 2/16?
>
> How does this fit into the patch we're replying to?
Sorry but I don't quite get you.
If you look at a mixed source assembly listing for fc_host_dispatch() [1] we load
the the offset of 24 from %r12 into %r1 and then the beginning of %r1 into %r2
and crash. So if we now check if job->request_len is smaller than uint32_t we
know we can't have a messagecode in the request and bail out early, instead of
accessing a possible NULL pointer. At least that's my analysis, feel free to
correct me if I'm wrong.
[1] Listing:
static int fc_bsg_host_dispatch(struct Scsi_Host *shost, struct bsg_job *job)
{
struct fc_internal *i = to_fc_internal(shost->transportt);
struct fc_bsg_request *bsg_request = job->request;
5d54: e3 10 c0 18 00 04 lg %r1,24(%r12)
struct fc_bsg_reply *bsg_reply = job->reply;
5d5a: e3 b0 c0 20 00 04 lg %r11,32(%r12)
int cmdlen = sizeof(uint32_t); /* start with length of msgcode */
int ret;
/* check if we really have all the request data needed */
if (job->request_len < cmdlen) {
5d60: a7 c4 00 48 jle 5df0 <fc_bsg_dispatch+0x1f0>
ret = -ENOMSG;
goto fail_host_msg;
}
/* Validate the host command */
switch (bsg_request->msgcode) {
5d64: 58 20 10 00 l %r2,0(%r1)
5d68: c2 2f 80 00 00 03 clfi %r2,2147483651
5d6e: a7 84 00 1a je 5da2 <fc_bsg_dispatch+0x1a2>
5d72: a7 24 00 0a jh 5d86 <fc_bsg_dispatch+0x186>
5d76: c0 19 80 00 00 01 iilf %r1,2147483649
5d7c: ec 21 00 2b a0 77 clrj %r2,%r1,10,5dd2 <fc_bsg_dispatch+0x1d2>
5d82: a7 f4 00 3b j 5df8 <fc_bsg_dispatch+0x1f8>
5d86: c0 59 80 00 00 04 iilf %r5,2147483652
5d8c: ec 25 00 0b 80 76 crj %r2,%r5,8,5da2 <fc_bsg_dispatch+0x1a2>
5d92: c0 59 80 00 00 ff iilf %r5,2147483903
5d98: ec 25 00 13 80 76 crj %r2,%r5,8,5dbe <fc_bsg_dispatch+0x1be>
5d9e: a7 f4 00 2d j 5df8 <fc_bsg_dispatch+0x1f8>
Thanks,
Johannes
--
Johannes Thumshirn Storage
jthumshirn@...e.de +49 911 74053 689
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
Key fingerprint = EC38 9CAB C2C4 F25D 8600 D0D0 0393 969D 2D76 0850
Powered by blists - more mailing lists