linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] null_blk: fix validation of block size

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 13:47:17 -0600
From: Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>
To: Andreas Hindborg <nmi@...aspace.dk>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...sung.com>,
	Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
	John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>,
	Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@...nel.org>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] null_blk: fix validation of block size

On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 09:26:45PM +0200, Andreas Hindborg wrote:
> -	dev->blocksize = round_down(dev->blocksize, 512);
> -	dev->blocksize = clamp_t(unsigned int, dev->blocksize, 512, 4096);
> +	if (blk_validate_block_size(dev->blocksize) != 0) {
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +	}

No need for the { } brackets for a one-line if.

It also looks like a good idea if this check was just done in
blk_validate_limits() so that each driver doesn't have to do their own
checks. That block function is kind of recent though. Your patch here
looks fine if you want stable back-ports, but I haven't heard any
complaints till recently :)