linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.19 59/92] sd: Fix REQ_OP_ZONE

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: <20200128181513.GC3673744@kroah.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Jan 2020 19:15:13 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@....com>,
        Masato Suzuki <masato.suzuki@....com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 59/92] sd: Fix REQ_OP_ZONE_REPORT completion handling

On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 07:02:31PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > From: Masato Suzuki <masato.suzuki@....com>
> > 
> >
> 
> > ZBC/ZAC report zones command may return less bytes than requested if the
> > number of matching zones for the report request is small. However, unlike
> > read or write commands, the remainder of incomplete report zones commands
> > cannot be automatically requested by the block layer: the start sector of
> > the next report cannot be known, and the report reply may not be 512B
> > aligned for SAS drives (a report zone reply size is always a multiple of
> > 64B). The regular request completion code executing bio_advance() and
> > restart of the command remainder part currently causes invalid zone
> > descriptor data to be reported to the caller if the report zone size is
> > smaller than 512B (a case that can happen easily for a report of the last
> > zones of a SAS drive for example).
> 
> What is the story here? Mainline does not seem to have this patch, so
> this is not the case of "upstream commit xxx" line simply missing. If
> the same bug is fixed in mainline different way, it would be nice to
> point to that commit..

Yes, this is not needed in 5.4 as it was rewritten differently there.

thanks,

greg k-h