linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v1 4/4] nvmet-discovery: do not use invalid port

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]

Date:   Wed, 13 Sep 2023 13:59:18 +0200
From:   Daniel Wagner <dwagner@...e.de>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        James Smart <james.smart@...adcom.com>,
        Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v1 4/4] nvmet-discovery: do not use invalid port

On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 01:35:19PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> So that's interesting.  But what I'm mostly worried about is how the
> nvmet kernel code allows a request without ->port to progress to the
> actual command handler.

nvmet_fc_handle_fcp_rqst()

	if (tgtport->pe)
		fod->req.port = tgtport->pe->port;

Not sure why this is there. Will test what happens when we just return
an error when we don't have pe set.

> We should never allow a command to get that
> far if ->port is NULL, and should not allow to clear ->port while
> commands are still handled.

Okay, makes sense. I'll test this when I have access to my rig again tomorrow.