> On Mar 18, 2023, at 6:04 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 2023-03-17 at 19:01 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: >> A slightly modified take on Jeff's earlier patches, tested with >> both NFSv3 and NFSv4.1 via simple fault injection in >> svc_rqst_replace_page(). >> >> In general I'm in favor of more rq_pages bounds checking by >> replacing direct modification of the rq_respages and rq_next_page >> fields with accessor functions. >> >> --- >> >> Chuck Lever (2): >> SUNRPC: add bounds checking to svc_rqst_replace_page >> NFSD: Watch for rq_pages bounds checking errors in nfsd_splice_actor() >> >> Jeff Layton (1): >> nfsd: don't replace page in rq_pages if it's a continuation of last page >> >> >> fs/nfsd/vfs.c | 15 +++++++++++++-- >> include/linux/sunrpc/svc.h | 2 +- >> include/trace/events/sunrpc.h | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> net/sunrpc/svc.c | 15 ++++++++++++++- >> 4 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> -- >> Chuck Lever >> > > Looks good, Chuck, thanks. You can add this to the last two: > > Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> Excellent, thanks! When I started I expected 3/3 to be more substantial, but since it's just a handful of lines and the patch descriptions are about the same, I'm going to squash 2/3 and 3/3 together. Only question is whether to apply that to nfsd-next or nfsd-fixes. Since it's a defensive change, I was thinking nfsd-next. Let me know if you think it should get merged sooner. -- Chuck Lever
