[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210330090815.GA1897@anparri>
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 11:08:15 +0200
From: Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>
To: Olaf Hering <olaf@...fle.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org,
"K . Y . Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>, Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>,
Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>,
Saruhan Karademir <skarade@...rosoft.com>,
Juan Vazquez <juvazq@...rosoft.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] scsi: storvsc: Validate length of incoming packet in
storvsc_on_channel_callback()
Hi Olaf,
On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 06:37:21PM +0200, Olaf Hering wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, Andrea Parri (Microsoft) wrote:
>
> > Check that the packet is of the expected size at least, don't copy data
> > past the packet.
>
> > + if (hv_pkt_datalen(desc) < sizeof(struct vstor_packet) -
> > + stor_device->vmscsi_size_delta) {
> > + dev_err(&device->device, "Invalid packet len\n");
> > + continue;
> > + }
> > +
>
> Sorry for being late:
>
> It might be just cosmetic, but should this check be done prior the call to vmbus_request_addr()?
TBH, I'm not immediately seeing why it 'should'; it could make sense to move
the check on the packet data length.
> Unrelated: my copy of vmbus_request_addr() can return 0, which is apparently not handled by this loop in storvsc_on_channel_callback().
Indeed, IDs of 0 are reserved for so called unsolicited messages; I think we
should check that storvsc_on_io_completion() is not called on such messages.
Thanks,
Andrea
Powered by blists - more mailing lists