linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PM / hibernate: Fix snapshot partial write lengths

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: <YaXJ+LqbmlKJ21Ja@kroah.com>
Date:   Tue, 30 Nov 2021 07:51:36 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM / hibernate: Fix snapshot partial write lengths

On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 08:50:06AM -0800, Evan Green wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 4:54 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 9:22 PM Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 9:54 AM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 6:13 PM Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Gentle bump.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 12:24 PM Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > snapshot_write() is inappropriately limiting the amount of data that can
> > > > > > be written in cases where a partial page has already been written. For
> > > > > > example, one would expect to be able to write 1 byte, then 4095 bytes to
> > > > > > the snapshot device, and have both of those complete fully (since now
> > > > > > we're aligned to a page again). But what ends up happening is we write 1
> > > > > > byte, then 4094/4095 bytes complete successfully.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The reason is that simple_write_to_buffer()'s second argument is the
> > > > > > total size of the buffer, not the size of the buffer minus the offset.
> > > > > > Since simple_write_to_buffer() accounts for the offset in its
> > > > > > implementation, snapshot_write() can just pass the full page size
> > > > > > directly down.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  kernel/power/user.c | 2 +-
> > > > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/power/user.c b/kernel/power/user.c
> > > > > > index 740723bb388524..ad241b4ff64c58 100644
> > > > > > --- a/kernel/power/user.c
> > > > > > +++ b/kernel/power/user.c
> > > > > > @@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ static ssize_t snapshot_write(struct file *filp, const char __user *buf,
> > > > > >                 if (res <= 0)
> > > > > >                         goto unlock;
> > > > > >         } else {
> > > > > > -               res = PAGE_SIZE - pg_offp;
> > > > > > +               res = PAGE_SIZE;
> > > > > >         }
> > > > > >
> > > > > >         if (!data_of(data->handle)) {
> > > > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Do you actually see this problem in practice?
> > >
> > > Yes. I may fire up another thread to explain why I'm stuck doing a
> > > partial page write, and how I might be able to stop doing that in the
> > > future with some kernel help. But either way, this is a bug.
> >
> > OK, patch applied as 5.16-rc material.
> >
> > I guess it should go into -stable kernels too?
> 
> Yes, putting it into -stable would make sense also. I should have CCed
> them originally, doing that now.


<formletter>

This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the
stable kernel tree.  Please read:
    https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/stable-kernel-rules.html
for how to do this properly.

</formletter>