On Thu, Mar 22 2018 at 1:21pm -0400,
Heinz Mauelshagen <heinzm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This v2 addresses Mikulas' point about the variable range and folds in
> "[PATCH] dm raid: use __within_range() more in parse_raid_params()":
>
> parse_raid_parames() compared variable "int value" with
> INT_MAX to prevent overflow of mddev variables set.
>
> Change type to "long long value".
Can you elaborate on the risk/issue that is being fixed here?
User specifying a value that overflows an int?
(also: see below for inline comment about last hunk)
> Whilst on it, use __within_range() throughout and
> add a sync min/max rate check.
>
> Signed-off-by: Heinz Mauelshagen <heinzm@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/md/dm-raid.c | 16 +++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-raid.c b/drivers/md/dm-raid.c
> index c1d1034ff7b7..c0e3d2aa9346 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/dm-raid.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/dm-raid.c
> @@ -1141,7 +1141,7 @@ static int validate_raid_redundancy(struct raid_set *rs)
> static int parse_raid_params(struct raid_set *rs, struct dm_arg_set *as,
> unsigned int num_raid_params)
> {
> - int value, raid10_format = ALGORITHM_RAID10_DEFAULT;
> + long long value, raid10_format = ALGORITHM_RAID10_DEFAULT;
> unsigned int raid10_copies = 2;
> unsigned int i, write_mostly = 0;
> unsigned int region_size = 0;
> @@ -1153,7 +1153,7 @@ static int parse_raid_params(struct raid_set *rs, struct dm_arg_set *as,
> arg = dm_shift_arg(as);
> num_raid_params--; /* Account for chunk_size argument */
>
> - if (kstrtoint(arg, 10, &value) < 0) {
> + if (kstrtoll(arg, 10, &value) < 0) {
> rs->ti->error = "Bad numerical argument given for chunk_size";
> return -EINVAL;
> }
> @@ -1315,7 +1315,7 @@ static int parse_raid_params(struct raid_set *rs, struct dm_arg_set *as,
> /*
> * Parameters with number values from here on.
> */
> - if (kstrtoint(arg, 10, &value) < 0) {
> + if (kstrtoll(arg, 10, &value) < 0) {
> rs->ti->error = "Bad numerical argument given in raid params";
> return -EINVAL;
> }
> @@ -1430,7 +1430,7 @@ static int parse_raid_params(struct raid_set *rs, struct dm_arg_set *as,
> rs->ti->error = "Only one min_recovery_rate argument pair allowed";
> return -EINVAL;
> }
> - if (value > INT_MAX) {
> + if (!__within_range(value, 0, INT_MAX)) {
> rs->ti->error = "min_recovery_rate out of range";
> return -EINVAL;
> }
> @@ -1440,7 +1440,7 @@ static int parse_raid_params(struct raid_set *rs, struct dm_arg_set *as,
> rs->ti->error = "Only one max_recovery_rate argument pair allowed";
> return -EINVAL;
> }
> - if (value > INT_MAX) {
> + if (!__within_range(value, 0, INT_MAX)) {
> rs->ti->error = "max_recovery_rate out of range";
> return -EINVAL;
> }
> @@ -1472,6 +1472,12 @@ static int parse_raid_params(struct raid_set *rs, struct dm_arg_set *as,
> }
> }
>
> + if (rs->md.sync_speed_max &&
> + rs->md.sync_speed_max < rs->md.sync_speed_min) {
> + rs->ti->error = "sync speed max smaller than min";
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> +
> if (test_bit(__CTR_FLAG_SYNC, &rs->ctr_flags) &&
> test_bit(__CTR_FLAG_NOSYNC, &rs->ctr_flags)) {
> rs->ti->error = "sync and nosync are mutually exclusive";
> --
> 2.14.3
>
Isn't this last hunk unrelated?
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
