linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 11/11] block: sed-opal: check size of shadow mbr

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:   Tue, 20 Mar 2018 11:02:53 +0100
From:   Jonas Rabenstein <jonas.rabenstein@...dium.uni-erlangen.de>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     Jonas Rabenstein <jonas.rabenstein@...dium.uni-erlangen.de>,
        Scott Bauer <scott.bauer@...el.com>,
        Jonathan Derrick <jonathan.derrick@...el.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/11] block: sed-opal: check size of shadow mbr

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 09:01:51PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 07:36:53PM +0100, Jonas Rabenstein wrote:
> > Check whether the shadow mbr does fit in the provided space on the
> > target. Also a proper firmware should handle this case and return an
> > error we may prevent problems or even damage with crappy firmwares.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jonas Rabenstein <jonas.rabenstein@...dium.uni-erlangen.de>
> > 
> > diff --git a/block/sed-opal.c b/block/sed-opal.c
> > index 51f8034edbf7..9c73bd24c55f 100644
> > --- a/block/sed-opal.c
> > +++ b/block/sed-opal.c
> > @@ -1545,6 +1545,20 @@ static int write_shadow_mbr(struct opal_dev *dev, void *data)
> >  	u64 len;
> >  	int err = 0;
> >  
> > +	/* do we fit in the available shadow mbr space? */
> > +	err = generic_get_table_info(dev, OPAL_MBR, OPAL_TABLE_ROWS);
> 
> And here it gets used.  So this should be merged with the previous patch.
Thought, as the previous one provides a generic interface which is only
used here for this specific use case, separate patches would be better.
But I will merge them in a v3 with all the other comments on the other
patches.