[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20210104234137.438275-1-arnd@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2021 00:41:04 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
To: "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Phil Oester <kernel@...uxace.com>,
Kashyap Desai <kashyap.desai@...adcom.com>,
Sumit Saxena <sumit.saxena@...adcom.com>,
Shivasharan S <shivasharan.srikanteshwara@...adcom.com>,
Anand Lodnoor <anand.lodnoor@...adcom.com>,
Vaibhav Gupta <vaibhavgupta40@...il.com>,
Jason Yan <yanaijie@...wei.com>,
Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@....com>,
megaraidlinux.pdl@...adcom.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] scsi: megaraid_sas: Fix MEGASAS_IOC_FIRMWARE regression
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Phil Oester reported that a fix for a possible buffer overrun that I
sent caused a regression that manifests in this output:
Event Message: A PCI parity error was detected on a component at bus 0 device 5 function 0.
Severity: Critical
Message ID: PCI1308
The original code tried to handle the sense data pointer differently
when using 32-bit 64-bit DMA addressing, which would lead to a 32-bit
dma_addr_t value of 0x11223344 to get stored
32-bit kernel: 44 33 22 11 ?? ?? ?? ??
64-bit LE kernel: 44 33 22 11 00 00 00 00
64-bit BE kernel: 00 00 00 00 44 33 22 11
or a 64-bit dma_addr_t value of 0x1122334455667788 to get stored as
32-bit kernel: 88 77 66 55 ?? ?? ?? ??
64-bit kernel: 88 77 66 55 44 33 22 11
In my patch, I tried to ensure that the same value is used on both
32-bit and 64-bit kernels, and picked what seemed to be the most sensible
combination, storing 32-bit addresses in the first four bytes (as 32-bit
kernels already did), and 64-bit addresses in eight consecutive bytes
(as 64-bit kernels already did), but evidently this was incorrect.
Always storing the dma_addr_t pointer as 64-bit little-endian,
i.e. initializing the second four bytes to zero in case of 32-bit
addressing, apparently solved the problem for Phil, and is consistent
with what all 64-bit little-endian machines did before.
I also checked in the history that in previous versions of the code,
the pointer was always in the first four bytes without padding, and that
previous attempts to fix 64-bit user space, big-endian architectures
and 64-bit DMA were clearly flawed and seem to have introduced made
this worse.
Reported-by: Phil Oester <kernel@...uxace.com>
Fixes: 381d34e376e3 ("scsi: megaraid_sas: Check user-provided offsets")
Fixes: 107a60dd71b5 ("scsi: megaraid_sas: Add support for 64bit consistent DMA")
Fixes: 94cd65ddf4d7 ("[SCSI] megaraid_sas: addded support for big endian architecture")
Fixes: 7b2519afa1ab ("[SCSI] megaraid_sas: fix 64 bit sense pointer truncation")
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
---
drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas_base.c | 6 ++----
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas_base.c b/drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas_base.c
index 6e4bf05c6d77..3b574c453414 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas_base.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/megaraid/megaraid_sas_base.c
@@ -8205,11 +8205,9 @@ megasas_mgmt_fw_ioctl(struct megasas_instance *instance,
goto out;
}
+ /* always store 64 bits regardless of addressing */
sense_ptr = (void *)cmd->frame + ioc->sense_off;
- if (instance->consistent_mask_64bit)
- put_unaligned_le64(sense_handle, sense_ptr);
- else
- put_unaligned_le32(sense_handle, sense_ptr);
+ put_unaligned_le64(sense_handle, sense_ptr);
}
/*
--
2.29.2
Powered by blists - more mailing lists