Re: [PATCH] block: use "unsigned long" for blk_validate_block_size()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2021/12/18 3:09, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2021/12/18 1:25, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 12/17/21 4:38 AM, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>>> Use of "unsigned short" for loop_validate_block_size() is wrong [1], and
>>> commit af3c570fb0df422b ("loop: Use blk_validate_block_size() to validate
>>> block size") changed to use "unsigned int".
>>>
>>> However, since lo_simple_ioctl(LOOP_SET_BLOCK_SIZE) passes "unsigned long
>>> arg" to loop_set_block_size(), blk_validate_block_size() can't validate
>>> the upper 32bits on 64bits environment. A block size like 0x100000200
>>> should be rejected.
>>
>> Wouldn't it make more sense to validate that part on the loop side? A
>> block size > 32-bit doesn't make any sense.
>>
> 
> I think doing below is embarrassing, for there is blk_validate_block_size() which is
> meant for validating the arg. Although use of "unsigned long" for blk_validate_block_size()
> might cause small bloating on 64 bits kernels, I think 64 bits kernels would not care.
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
> index c3a36cfaa855..98871d7b601d 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/loop.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
> @@ -1474,6 +1474,10 @@ static int loop_set_block_size(struct loop_device *lo, unsigned long arg)
>  	err = blk_validate_block_size(arg);
>  	if (err)
>  		return err;
> +#if BITS_PER_LONG == 64
> +	if (arg > UINT_MAX)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +#endif
>  
>  	if (lo->lo_queue->limits.logical_block_size == arg)
>  		return 0;
> 
> And reviving loop_validate_block_size() in order to use "unsigned long" does not make sense
> for 32bits kernels.

Well, this problem is not specific to the loop module.
nbd_set_size(struct nbd_device *nbd, loff_t bytesize, loff_t blksize) calls
blk_validate_block_size(blksize), and blksize can be > UINT_MAX, for
ioctl(NBD_SET_BLKSIZE) passes "unsigned long arg" to nbd_set_size().

But size bloating cannot be a problem because there are only 4 callers.

    drivers/block/loop.c
        line 996
        line 1474 
    drivers/block/nbd.c, line 325
    drivers/block/virtio_blk.c, line 878 

I think we can (and should) use "unsigned long" for blk_validate_block_size().



[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [IDE]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux