linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] block: move sanity checking ahead of bi_front/back_seg

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: <043c8787-1056-c16d-a38d-a421920742de@oracle.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Sep 2017 08:55:59 +0800
From:   "jianchao.wang" <jianchao.w.wang@...cle.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: move sanity checking ahead of
 bi_front/back_seg_size updating



On 09/19/2017 07:51 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 07:10:30AM +0800, Jianchao Wang wrote:
>> If the bio_integrity_merge_rq() return false or nr_phys_segments exceeds
>> the max_segments, the merging fails, but the bi_front/back_seg_size may
>> have been modified. To avoid it, move the sanity checking ahead.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jianchao Wang <jianchao.w.wang@...cle.com>
> 
> This looks fine to me:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
> 
> But can you elaborate a little more on how this found and if there
> is a way to easily reproduce it, say for a blktests test case?
> 
It is found when I made the patch of 
'block: consider merge of segments when merge bio into rq' , not from an actual
issue or test case.

Thanks
Jianchao