linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 13/35] rbd: Switch from using bvec_iter to iov

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: <2680458.1742336023@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2025 22:13:43 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Viacheslav Dubeyko <Slava.Dubeyko@....com>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Alex Markuze <amarkuze@...hat.com>,
    "slava@...eyko.com" <slava@...eyko.com>,
    "dongsheng.yang@...ystack.cn" <dongsheng.yang@...ystack.cn>,
    Xiubo Li <xiubli@...hat.com>,
    "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
    "ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org" <ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
    "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
    "jlayton@...nel.org" <jlayton@...nel.org>,
    "idryomov@...il.com" <idryomov@...il.com>,
    "linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 13/35] rbd: Switch from using bvec_iter to iov_iter

Viacheslav Dubeyko <Slava.Dubeyko@....com> wrote:

> > +	list_for_each_entry(ex, object_extents, oe_item) {
> > +		if (ex->oe_objno == objno &&
> 
> OK. I see the point that objno should be the same.
> 
> > +		    ex->oe_off <= objoff &&
> 
> But why ex->oe_off could be lesser than objoff? The objoff could be not exactly
> the same?
> 
> > +		    ex->oe_off + ex->oe_len >= objoff + xlen) /* paranoia */
> 
> Do we really need in this comment? :)
> 
> I am still guessing why ex->oe_off + ex->oe_len could be bigger than objoff +
> xlen. Is it possible that object size or offset could be bigger?

Look further on in the patch.  The code is preexisting, just moved a bit.

My guess is that we're looking at data from the server so it *has* to be
sanity chacked before we can trust it.

David