linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] nvmet: fix nvmet_execute_write

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: <93622938-f532-b8ac-2bca-fe40ed759e71@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Fri, 30 Mar 2018 18:48:18 -0300
From:   Rodrigo Rosatti Galvão 
        <rosattig@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hch@....de,
        linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, sagi@...mberg.me
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nvmet: fix nvmet_execute_write_zeroes function


> Doesn't that mean your host is using this command wrong? The NLB is a
> 0's based value, we're supposed to +1 to get the correct block count.

Keith, I tested passing different values to the c (number of blocks) and 
s (64-bit LBA of first block to access) parameters, and it was failing. 
When I removed the +1, the command worked fine.

I used a simple script to validate this:

for s in {0..20}
     do
             for c in {0..20}
             do
                     nvme write-zeroes /dev/nvme0 -n 10 -s $s -c $c
             done
     done


Is there some other way to test it?

-- 
Rodrigo R. Galvão
Intern - Linux Technology Center - IBM