[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5j+8WUgr1y=JYhCkUqUWE0SJ+ymkM9DPEQwY8UoqPmoPSw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2018 13:23:17 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>,
Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@....com>,
David Windsor <dave@...lcore.net>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.com>,
Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>,
linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: usercopy whitelist woe in scsi_sense_cache
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 2:32 AM, Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org> wrote:
> I'm missing something here. When the request gets completed in the
> first place, the hook bfq_finish_requeue_request gets called, and that
> hook clears both ->elv.priv elements (as the request has a non-null
> elv.icq). So, when bfq gets the same request again, those elements
> must be NULL. What am I getting wrong?
>
> I have some more concern on this point, but I'll stick to this for the
> moment, to not create more confusion.
I don't know the "how", I only found the "what". :) If you want, grab
the reproducer VM linked to earlier in this thread; it'll hit the
problem within about 30 seconds of running the reproducer.
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists