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. Thanks Vivek -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bcache" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
