linux-kernel - [PATCH 2/2] scsi: lpfc: Make sure to completely clear some bitmaps

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <78647b840c6e83b9b185541b12382c30a99d1788.1640328930.git.christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
Date:   Fri, 24 Dec 2021 08:07:27 +0100
From:   Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
To:     james.smart@...adcom.com, dick.kennedy@...adcom.com,
        jejb@...ux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com
Cc:     linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] scsi: lpfc: Make sure to completely clear some bitmaps

When the 'phba->fcf.fcf_rr_bmask' bitmap is cleared, the code makes the
assumption that it fits in only 1 long.
Depending on the value of LPFC_SLI4_FCF_TBL_INDX_MAX, this may be wrong
and only part of the bitmap would be cleared.

Up to now, LPFC_SLI4_FCF_TBL_INDX_MAX is 32, so it is not an issue. But
using bitmap_zero() is more future proof.

Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
---
 drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_hbadisc.c | 7 ++++---
 drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c     | 3 +--
 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_hbadisc.c b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_hbadisc.c
index 816fc406135b..5f142ee639ad 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_hbadisc.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_hbadisc.c
@@ -1517,7 +1517,8 @@ lpfc_sli4_clear_fcf_rr_bmask(struct lpfc_hba *phba)
 {
 	struct lpfc_fcf_pri *fcf_pri;
 	struct lpfc_fcf_pri *next_fcf_pri;
-	memset(phba->fcf.fcf_rr_bmask, 0, sizeof(*phba->fcf.fcf_rr_bmask));
+
+	bitmap_zero(phba->fcf.fcf_rr_bmask, LPFC_SLI4_FCF_TBL_INDX_MAX);
 	spin_lock_irq(&phba->hbalock);
 	list_for_each_entry_safe(fcf_pri, next_fcf_pri,
 				&phba->fcf.fcf_pri_list, list) {
@@ -2476,8 +2477,8 @@ static int lpfc_sli4_fcf_pri_list_add(struct lpfc_hba *phba,
 	if (new_fcf_pri->fcf_rec.priority <=  current_fcf_pri) {
 		list_add(&new_fcf_pri->list, &phba->fcf.fcf_pri_list);
 		if (new_fcf_pri->fcf_rec.priority <  current_fcf_pri) {
-			memset(phba->fcf.fcf_rr_bmask, 0,
-				sizeof(*phba->fcf.fcf_rr_bmask));
+			bitmap_zero(phba->fcf.fcf_rr_bmask,
+				    LPFC_SLI4_FCF_TBL_INDX_MAX);
 			/* fcfs_at_this_priority_level = 1; */
 			phba->fcf.eligible_fcf_cnt = 1;
 		} else
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c
index 1bc0db572d9e..9ea1b0db42a6 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/lpfc/lpfc_sli.c
@@ -20220,8 +20220,7 @@ lpfc_check_next_fcf_pri_level(struct lpfc_hba *phba)
 	 * Clear the rr_bmask and set all of the bits that are at this
 	 * priority.
 	 */
-	memset(phba->fcf.fcf_rr_bmask, 0,
-			sizeof(*phba->fcf.fcf_rr_bmask));
+	bitmap_zero(phba->fcf.fcf_rr_bmask, LPFC_SLI4_FCF_TBL_INDX_MAX);
 	spin_lock_irq(&phba->hbalock);
 	list_for_each_entry(fcf_pri, &phba->fcf.fcf_pri_list, list) {
 		if (fcf_pri->fcf_rec.flag & LPFC_FCF_FLOGI_FAILED)
-- 
2.32.0