linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sd: close hole in > 2T device rejection when !CONFIG

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: <yq1wpcbvw8r.fsf@oracle.com>
Date:   Mon, 27 Feb 2017 22:18:28 -0500
From:   "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
To:     Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@...disk.com>
Cc:     "jejb\@linux.vnet.ibm.com" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "steve.magnani\@digidescorp.com" <steve.magnani@...idescorp.com>,
        "martin.petersen\@oracle.com" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        "linux-scsi\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "steve\@digidescorp.com" <steve@...idescorp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sd: close hole in > 2T device rejection when !CONFIG_LBDAF

>>>>> "Bart" == Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@...disk.com> writes:

Bart,

Bart> Sorry but I still don't understand why the two checks are
Bart> different. How about the (untested) patch below? The approach
Bart> below avoids that the check is duplicated and - at least in my
Bart> opinion - results in code that is easier to read.

I'll take a closer look at your patch tomorrow. I am sympathetic to
having a sanity check helper function. That would also give us a single
place to filter out crackpot values reported by USB doodads.

-- 
Martin K. Petersen	Oracle Linux Engineering