linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] scsi: Let scsi_execute_cmd() mark args->sshdr as invalid

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]

Date:   Wed, 17 May 2023 16:05:38 +0100
From:   John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
To:     Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: Let scsi_execute_cmd() mark args->sshdr as invalid

On 17/05/2023 05:54, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 17.05.23 04:06, Martin K. Petersen wrote:
>>
>> Juergen,
>>
>>> Some callers of scsi_execute_cmd() (like e.g. sd_spinup_disk()) are
>>> passing an uninitialized struct sshdr and don't look at the return
>>> value of scsi_execute_cmd() before looking at the contents of that
>>> struct.
>>
>> Which callers? sd_spinup_disk() appears to do the right thing...
>>
> 
> Not really. It is calling media_not_present() directly after the call of
> scsi_execute_cmd() without checking the result. 

Is there a reason that callers of scsi_execute_cmd() are not always 
checking the result for a negative error code (before examining the buffer)?

> media_not_present() is 
> looking
> at sshdr, which is uninitialized in case of an early error in
> scsi_execute_cmd(). The same applies to read_capacity_1[06]().
> 
> scsi_test_unit_ready() and scsi_report_lun_scan() have the problem, too.
> 
> Do I need to find other examples?

Thanks,
John