On Thu, Jun 22 2023 at 3:51P -0400,
Demi Marie Obenour <demi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 12:28:28PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 03 2023 at 10:52P -0400,
> > Demi Marie Obenour <demi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Otherwise subsequent code will dereference a misaligned
> > > `struct dm_target_spec *`, which is undefined behavior.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Demi Marie Obenour <demi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Fixes: 1da177e4c3f4 ("Linux-2.6.12-rc2")
> > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > ---
> > > drivers/md/dm-ioctl.c | 7 +++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-ioctl.c b/drivers/md/dm-ioctl.c
> > > index cc77cf3d410921432eb0c62cdede7d55b9aa674a..34fa74c6a70db8aa67aaba3f6a2fc4f38ef736bc 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/md/dm-ioctl.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/md/dm-ioctl.c
> > > @@ -1394,6 +1394,13 @@ static inline fmode_t get_mode(struct dm_ioctl *param)
> > > static int next_target(struct dm_target_spec *last, uint32_t next, void *end,
> > > struct dm_target_spec **spec, char **target_params)
> > > {
> > > + static_assert(_Alignof(struct dm_target_spec) <= 8,
> > > + "struct dm_target_spec has excessive alignment requirements");
> >
> > Really not sure what you mean by "has excessive alignment requirements"...
>
> This patch checks that struct dm_target_spec is 8-byte aligned. That is
> okay if its alignment is 8 or less, but not if is 16 or more, so I added
> a static assert to check that struct dm_target_spec indeed requires at
> most 8-byte alignment. That said, “excessive alignment requirements” is
> (as shown by you having to ask this question) a bad error message.
> Would “must not require more than 8-byte alignment” be better?
Yes, that's better, I've updated it to use that.
> > > + if (next % 8) {
> > > + DMERR("Next target spec (offset %u) is not 8-byte aligned", next);
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > *spec = (struct dm_target_spec *) ((unsigned char *) last + next);
> > > *target_params = (char *) (*spec + 1);
> > >
> >
> > But this patch and patches 2 and 3 need more review. I'd like Mikulas to review.
> >
> > I did pick up patches 4-6 for the upcoming 6.5 merge window.
>
> Thanks!
>
> > Note, please prefix with "dm ioctl" instead of "device-mapper".
>
> Good to know, thanks! I have several additional patches written that
> require patch 4. Should I send patches 1 through 3 in the same series
> as well?
I did end up picking up patches 1-3 and rebased so they are in front
of your patches 4-6 like you intended.
But I agree with Mikulas, I'm not seeing the point in tagging any of
these for stable@.
All commits are currently at the tip of dm-6.5, see:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/device-mapper/linux-dm.git/log/?h=dm-6.5
Mike
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
