I don't ever expect to see large dev_loss_tmo values, but the patch is fine.
Acked-by: James Smart <james.smart@xxxxxxxxxx>
-- james s
Hannes Reinecke wrote:
The rport structure defines dev_loss_tmo as u32, which is
later multiplied with HZ to get the actual timeout value.
This might overflow for large dev_loss_tmo values. So we
should be better using u64 as intermediate variables here
to protect against overflow.
Signed-off-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@xxxxxxx>
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c
index 79660ee..9860322 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c
@@ -833,7 +833,7 @@ static ssize_t
store_fc_rport_dev_loss_tmo(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
const char *buf, size_t count)
{
- int val;
+ unsigned long val;
struct fc_rport *rport = transport_class_to_rport(dev);
struct Scsi_Host *shost = rport_to_shost(rport);
struct fc_internal *i = to_fc_internal(shost->transportt);
@@ -847,6 +847,12 @@ store_fc_rport_dev_loss_tmo(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
return -EINVAL;
/*
+ * Check for overflow; dev_loss_tmo is u32
+ */
+ if (val > UINT_MAX)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ /*
* If fast_io_fail is off we have to cap
* dev_loss_tmo at SCSI_DEVICE_BLOCK_MAX_TIMEOUT
*/
@@ -2852,7 +2858,7 @@ void
fc_remote_port_delete(struct fc_rport *rport)
{
struct Scsi_Host *shost = rport_to_shost(rport);
- int timeout = rport->dev_loss_tmo;
+ unsigned long timeout = rport->dev_loss_tmo;
unsigned long flags;
/*
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
