linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND] scsi: return correct blkprep status code in case scsi_init

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: <1491936200.2654.18.camel@sandisk.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 Apr 2017 18:43:22 +0000
From:   Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@...disk.com>
To:     "jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "jthumshirn@...e.de" <jthumshirn@...e.de>,
        "martin.petersen@...cle.com" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
CC:     "hch@....de" <hch@....de>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "hare@...e.de" <hare@...e.de>,
        "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] scsi: return correct blkprep status code in case
 scsi_init_io() fails.

On Tue, 2017-04-11 at 09:46 +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> When instrumenting the SCSI layer to run into the
> !blk_rq_nr_phys_segments(rq) case the following  warning emitted from the
> block layer:
> 
> blk_peek_request: bad return=-22
> 
> This happens because since commit fd3fc0b4d730 ('scsi: don't BUG_ON()
> empty DMA transfers') we return the wrong error value from iscsi_prep_fn()
                                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There is no iscsi_prep_fn() in the kernel tree. Did you perhaps mean
scsi_prep_fn()?

> back to the block layer.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>
> Fixes: fd3fc0b4d730 scsi: don't BUG_ON() empty DMA transfers
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>

Commit fd3fc0b4d730 has a "Cc: stable" tag. I assume that that means that
this patch also needs that tag?

Otherwise this patch looks fine to me.

Bart.