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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <0eef6feb-4775-4249-af74-9fccb093b6bc@kernel.dk> Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2023 18:38:52 -0700 From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> To: Coly Li <colyli@...e.de> Cc: nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Block Devices <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>, Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Geliang Tang <geliang.tang@...e.com>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>, Vishal L Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>, Xiao Ni <xni@...hat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] badblocks: avoid checking invalid range in badblocks_check() On 12/23/23 5:32 PM, Coly Li wrote: >> 2023?12?24? 08:28?Coly Li <colyli@...e.de> ??? >> >> If prev_badblocks() returns '-1', it means no valid badblocks record >> before the checking range. It doesn't make sense to check whether >> the input checking range is overlapped with the non-existed invalid >> front range. >> >> This patch checkes whether 'prev >= 0' is true before calling >> overlap_front(), to void such invalid operations. >> >> Fixes: 3ea3354cb9f0 ("badblocks: improve badblocks_check() for multiple ranges handling") >> Reported-and-tested-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com> >> Signed-off-by: Coly Li <colyli@...e.de> >> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/nvdimm/3035e75a-9be0-4bc3-8d4a-6e52c207f277@leemhuis.info/ >> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> >> Cc: Geliang Tang <geliang.tang@...e.com> >> Cc: Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de> >> Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> >> Cc: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de> >> Cc: Vishal L Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com> >> Cc: Xiao Ni <xni@...hat.com> >> --- >> block/badblocks.c | 6 ++++-- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > Hi Jens, > > Is it possible to take this fix into 6.7 still? Thanks in advance. Yep, we're still a few weeks out, so not a problem. -- Jens Axboe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists