linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] scsi: ufs: Fix wrong Task Tag used in task management request UPIUs

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: <f0d1c6a196a044198647df6ca4b06efb@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Fri, 29 Jan 2021 13:57:27 +0800
From:   Can Guo <cang@...eaurora.org>
To:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Cc:     jaegeuk@...nel.org, asutoshd@...eaurora.org,
        nguyenb@...eaurora.org, hongwus@...eaurora.org,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com,
        Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
        Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        Stanley Chu <stanley.chu@...iatek.com>,
        Bean Huo <beanhuo@...ron.com>,
        Sujit Reddy Thumma <sthumma@...eaurora.org>,
        Vinayak Holikatti <vinholikatti@...il.com>,
        Yaniv Gardi <ygardi@...eaurora.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] scsi: ufs: Fix wrong Task Tag used in task
 management request UPIUs

On 2021-01-29 11:15, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 1/27/21 8:16 PM, Can Guo wrote:
>> In __ufshcd_issue_tm_cmd(), it is not right to use hba->nutrs + 
>> req->tag as
>> the Task Tag in one TMR UPIU. Directly use req->tag as the Task Tag.
> 
> Why is the current code wrong and why is this patch the proper fix?
> Please explain this in the patch description.
> 

req->tag is the tag allocated for one TMR, no?

>> +	 * blk_get_request() used here is only to get a free tag.
> 
> Please fix the word order in this comment ("blk_get_request() is used
> here only to get a free tag").

Sure.

> 
>> +	ufshcd_release(hba);
>>  	blk_put_request(req);
>> 
>> -	ufshcd_release(hba);
> 
> An explanation for this change is missing from the patch description.
> 

This is just for symmetric coding since this change is almost
re-writing the whole func - at the entrence it calls blk_get_request()
and ufshcd_hold(), so before exit it'd be good to call ufshcd_release()
before blk_put_request(). If you think this single line change worths
a separate patch, I can split it out in next version.

Thanks,
Can Guo.

> Thanks,
> 
> Bart.