On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 04:32:53PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 01:26:43PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 10:08:47AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 02:42:41PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > > > > > [..] > > > > Here's the new patch: > > > > > > > > > > > > commit e270c9ca843b5c86d59431b0d7a676b7846946d6 > > > > Author: Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Date: Mon Oct 1 14:41:08 2012 -0700 > > > > > > > > block: Fix a buffer overrun in bio_integrity_split() > > > > > > > > bio_integrity_split() seemed to be confusing pointers and arrays - > > > > bip_vec in bio_integrity_payload is an array appended to the end of the > > > > payload, so the bio_vecs in struct bio_pair need to come immediately > > > > after the bio_integrity_payload they're for, and there was an assignment > > > > in bio_integrity_split() that didn't make any sense. > > > > > > > > Also, changed bio_integrity_split() to not refer to the bvecs embedded > > > > in struct bio_pair, in case there's padding between them and > > > > bip->bip_vec. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > CC: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > CC: Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/bio-integrity.c b/fs/bio-integrity.c > > > > index a3f28f3..4ae22a8 100644 > > > > --- a/fs/bio-integrity.c > > > > +++ b/fs/bio-integrity.c > > > > @@ -694,15 +694,12 @@ void bio_integrity_split(struct bio *bio, struct bio_pair *bp, int sectors) > > > > bp->bio1.bi_integrity = &bp->bip1; > > > > bp->bio2.bi_integrity = &bp->bip2; > > > > > > > > - bp->iv1 = bip->bip_vec[0]; > > > > - bp->iv2 = bip->bip_vec[0]; > > > > + *bp->bip1.bip_vec = bip->bip_vec[0]; > > > > + *bp->bip2.bip_vec = bip->bip_vec[0]; > > > > > > I think this is horrible. Why not introduce bvec pointer in bip (like bio), > > > to cover the case when bvec are not inline. > > > > That's... exactly what the next patch in the series does. > > Yes, but if you want to push some of the these bug fixes in stable (as martin > had said), we need to introduce that bip->bio_vec pointer early. Also that > next patch is doing lot other other things like getting rid of bip_slabs > and we don't require all that to fix this particular bug. > > In fact I would say that it is beter to fix this blk integrity bug in a > separate patchset so that it can be pushed out earlier. I'm honestly not sure what your complaint about my bugfix patch was - it's small and complete, it does fix the bug. I don't follow why you think we need to introduce the bip->bio_vec pointer early... -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
