linux-kernel - Re: block: wrong return value by bio_end

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: <12aa1043-14c3-0f95-6cb4-f7a021268ae4@kernel.dk>
Date:   Fri, 30 Sep 2022 10:35:38 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>,
        Arie van der Hoeven <arie.vanderhoeven@...gate.com>,
        Tyler Erickson <tyler.erickson@...gate.com>,
        Muhammad Ahmad <muhammad.ahmad@...gate.com>,
        "linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        "andrea.righi@...onical.com" <andrea.righi@...onical.com>,
        "glen.valante@...aro.org" <glen.valante@...aro.org>,
        Michael English <michael.english@...gate.com>,
        Andrew Ring <andrew.ring@...gate.com>,
        Varun Boddu <varunreddy.boddu@...gate.com>,
        Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@....com>
Subject: Re: block: wrong return value by bio_end_sector?

On 9/30/22 9:59 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:
> Hi Jens, Damien, all other possibly interested people,
> this is to raise attention on a mistake that has emerged in a
> thread on a bfq extension for multi-actuary drives [1].
> 
> The mistake is apparently in the macro bio_end_sector (defined in
> include/linux/bio.h), which seems to be translated (incorrectly) as
> sector+size, and not as sector+size-1.
> 
> For your convenience, I'm pasting a detailed description of the
> problem, by Tyler (description taken from the above thread [1]).

I'm a little confused - currently it returns non-inclusive end, the
proposed change just make it inclusive. In general in the kernel the
former is used, and this one follows that.

-- 
Jens Axboe