linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mpt3sas: Avoid test/set_bit() operating in non-allocated memory

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]

Message-ID: <ZmAi3DoEBuv4txOL@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 01:33:32 -0700
From: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
To: Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>
Cc: Sathya Prakash <sathya.prakash@...adcom.com>,
	Sreekanth Reddy <sreekanth.reddy@...adcom.com>,
	Suganath Prabu Subramani <suganath-prabu.subramani@...adcom.com>,
	"James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>, leit@...a.com,
	"open list:LSILOGIC MPT FUSION DRIVERS (FC/SAS/SPI)" <MPT-FusionLinux.pdl@...adcom.com>,
	"open list:LSILOGIC MPT FUSION DRIVERS (FC/SAS/SPI)" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mpt3sas: Avoid test/set_bit() operating in non-allocated
 memory

On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 03:10:45PM -0600, Keith Busch wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 11:00:54AM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote:

> > @@ -8529,6 +8535,12 @@ mpt3sas_base_attach(struct MPT3SAS_ADAPTER *ioc)
> >  	ioc->pend_os_device_add_sz = (ioc->facts.MaxDevHandle / 8);
> >  	if (ioc->facts.MaxDevHandle % 8)
> >  		ioc->pend_os_device_add_sz++;
> > +
> > +	/* pend_os_device_add_sz should have, at least, the minimal room
> > +	 * for set_bit()/test_bit(), otherwise out-of-memory may occur
> > +	 */
> > +	ioc->pend_os_device_add_sz = ALIGN(ioc->pend_os_device_add_sz,
> > +					   sizeof(unsigned long));
> >  	ioc->pend_os_device_add = kzalloc(ioc->pend_os_device_add_sz,
> >  	    GFP_KERNEL);
> >  	if (!ioc->pend_os_device_add) {

> Do we need similiar ALIGN for _base_check_ioc_facts_changes() too?

Yes, that would help as well. Since it will protect
->device_remove_in_progress and others from the same problem.

Let me send a v2.

Thanks!