linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scsi: ips: fix missing break in switch

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: <alpine.LNX.2.21.1810170922480.130@nippy.intranet>
Date:   Wed, 17 Oct 2018 09:27:45 +1100 (AEDT)
From:   Finn Thain <fthain@...egraphics.com.au>
To:     "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
cc:     "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
        Adaptec OEM Raid Solutions <aacraid@...rosemi.com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: ips: fix missing break in switch

On Tue, 16 Oct 2018, Martin K. Petersen wrote:

> 
> Gustavo,
> 
> > Add missing break statement in order to prevent the code from falling
> > through to case TEST_UNIT_READY.
> 
> Applied to 4.20/scsi-queue, thanks!
> 
> 

This looks wrong to me. I think you've just prevented all START STOP 
commands sent to logical volumes from reaching

        return ((*ha->func.issue) (ha, scb));

I think a better patch is to add a "fall though" comment not a "break" 
statement. (I no longer have access to a ServeRAID board so I can't test.)

--