linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] ata: libata-scsi: Fix offsets for the fixed format sense data

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]

Message-ID: <Zn3Xx11UIbbJkbxq@google.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 21:21:11 +0000
From: Igor Pylypiv <ipylypiv@...gle.com>
To: Niklas Cassel <cassel@...nel.org>
Cc: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Akshat Jain <akshatzen@...gle.com>,
	stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] ata: libata-scsi: Fix offsets for the fixed
 format sense data

On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 02:08:50PM +0200, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> Hello Igor, Hannes,
> 
> The changes in this patch looks good, however, there is still one thing that
> bothers me:
> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/v6.10-rc5/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c#L873-L877
> 
> Specifically the code in the else statement below:
> 
> 	if (qc->err_mask ||
> 	    tf->status & (ATA_BUSY | ATA_DF | ATA_ERR | ATA_DRQ)) {
> 		ata_to_sense_error(qc->ap->print_id, tf->status, tf->error,
> 				   &sense_key, &asc, &ascq);
> 		ata_scsi_set_sense(qc->dev, cmd, sense_key, asc, ascq);
> 	} else {
> 		/*
> 		 * ATA PASS-THROUGH INFORMATION AVAILABLE
> 		 * Always in descriptor format sense.
> 		 */
> 		scsi_build_sense(cmd, 1, RECOVERED_ERROR, 0, 0x1D);
> 	}
> 
> Looking at sat6r01, I see that this is table:
> Table 217 — ATA command results
> 
> And this text:
> No error, successful completion or command in progress. The SATL
> shall terminate the command with CHECK CONDITION status with
> the sense key set to RECOVERED ERROR with the additional
> sense code set to ATA PASS-THROUGH INFORMATION
> AVAILABLE (see SPC-5). Descriptor format sense data shall include
> the ATA Status Return sense data descriptor (see 12.2.2.7).
> 
> However, I don't see anything in this text that says that the
> sense key should always be in descriptor format sense.
> 
> In fact, what will happen if the user has not set the D_SENSE bit
> (libata will default not set it), is that:
> 
> The else statement above will be executed, filling in sense key in
> descriptor format, after this if/else, we will continue checking
> if the sense buffer is in descriptor format, or fixed format.
> 
> Since the scsi_build_sense(cmd, 1, RECOVERED_ERROR, 0, 0x1D);
> is called with (..., 1, ..., ..., ...) it will always generate
> the sense data in descriptor format, regardless of
> dev->flags ATA_DFLAG_D_SENSE being set or not.
> 
> Should perhaps the code in the else statement be:
> 
> } else {
> 	ata_scsi_set_sense(qc->dev, cmd, RECOVERED_ERROR, 0, 0x1D);
> }
> 
> So that we actually respect the D_SENSE bit?
> 
> (We currently respect if when filling the sense data buffer with
> sense data from REQUEST SENSE EXT, so I'm not sure why we shouldn't
> respect it for successful ATA PASS-THROUGH commands.)
> 

Thanks for pointing this out, Niklas! I agree, it seems like there is no
reason to ignore the D_SENSE bit.

Interestingly, the code was using ata_scsi_set_sense() before.
Commit 11093cb1ef56 ("libata-scsi: generate correct ATA pass-through sense)"
changed it to always be in the descriptor format.

> 
> Kind regards,
> Niklas

Thanks,
Igor