On 5/20/19 10:52 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-05-20 at 10:41 -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> [...]
>>> --- a/drivers/scsi/ses.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/ses.c
>>> @@ -605,9 +605,14 @@ static void ses_enclosure_data_process(struct
>>> enclosure_device *edev,
>>> /* these elements are optional */
>>> type_ptr[0] ==
>>> ENCLOSURE_COMPONENT_SCSI_TARGET_PORT ||
>>> type_ptr[0] ==
>>> ENCLOSURE_COMPONENT_SCSI_INITIATOR_PORT ||
>>> - type_ptr[0] ==
>>> ENCLOSURE_COMPONENT_CONTROLLER_ELECTRONICS))
>>> + type_ptr[0] ==
>>> ENCLOSURE_COMPONENT_CONTROLLER_ELECTRONICS)) {
>>> addl_desc_ptr += addl_desc_ptr[1]
>>> + 2;
>>>
>>> + /* Ensure no out-of-bounds memory
>>> access */
>>> + if (addl_desc_ptr >= ses_dev-
>>>> page10 +
>>> + ses_dev-
>>>> page10_len)
>>> + addl_desc_ptr = NULL;
>>> + }
>>> }
>>> }
>>> kfree(buf);
>> Ping! Any comment on this patch.
> The update looks fine to me:
>
> Reviewed-by: James E.J. Bottomley <jejb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> It might also be interesting to find out how the proliant is
> structuring this descriptor array to precipitate the out of bounds: Is
> it just an off by one or something more serious?
I didn't look into the detail the enclosure message returned by the
hardware, but I believe it may have more description entries (page7)
than extended description entries (page10).
I can try to reserve the system and find out what exactly is wrong with
that system if you really want to find that out.
Cheers,
Longman
