Re: [PATCH] ata: do not hard code limit in ata_set_lba_range_entries()

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

 



I don't see how that's possible. count / n_block will always be
smaller than 65535 * ATA_MAX_TRIM_RNUM(64) = 4194240. Not to mention
that isn't even a "buffer limit" anyway. By SG_IO do you mean like
SCSI Write Same commands that issued with sg_write_same or so? If
that's the case, that's what exactly commit 5c79097a28c2
("libata-scsi: reject WRITE SAME (16) with n_block that exceeds
limit") is for.

On 23 August 2016 at 03:58, Shaun Tancheff <shaun@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 1:55 PM,  <tom.ty89@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> From: Tom Yan <tom.ty89@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> In commit 5c79097a28c2 ("libata-scsi: reject WRITE SAME (16) with
>> n_block that exceeds limit"), it is made sure that
>> ata_set_lba_range_entries() will never be called with a request
>> size (n_block) that is larger than the number of blocks that a
>> 512-byte block TRIM payload can describe (65535 * 64 = 4194240),
>> in addition to acknowlegding the SCSI/block layer with the same
>> limit by advertising it as the Maximum Write Same Length.
>>
>> Therefore, it is unnecessary to hard code the same limit in
>> ata_set_lba_range_entries() itself, which would only cost extra
>> maintenance effort. Such effort can be noticed in, for example,
>> commit 2983860c7668 ("libata-scsi: avoid repeated calculation of
>> number of TRIM ranges").
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tom Yan <tom.ty89@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c b/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c
>> index be9c76c..9b74ecb 100644
>> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c
>> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c
>> @@ -3322,7 +3322,7 @@ static unsigned int ata_scsi_write_same_xlat(struct ata_queued_cmd *qc)
>>         buf = page_address(sg_page(scsi_sglist(scmd)));
>>
>>         if (n_block <= 65535 * ATA_MAX_TRIM_RNUM) {
>> -               size = ata_set_lba_range_entries(buf, ATA_MAX_TRIM_RNUM, block, n_block);
>> +               size = ata_set_lba_range_entries(buf, block, n_block);
>>         } else {
>>                 fp = 2;
>>                 goto invalid_fld;
>> diff --git a/include/linux/ata.h b/include/linux/ata.h
>> index adbc812..5e2e9ad 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/ata.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/ata.h
>> @@ -1077,19 +1077,19 @@ static inline void ata_id_to_hd_driveid(u16 *id)
>>   * TO NV CACHE PINNED SET.
>>   */
>>  static inline unsigned ata_set_lba_range_entries(void *_buffer,
>> -               unsigned num, u64 sector, unsigned long count)
>> +               u64 sector, unsigned long count)
>>  {
>>         __le64 *buffer = _buffer;
>>         unsigned i = 0, used_bytes;
>>
>> -       while (i < num) {
>> -               u64 entry = sector |
>> -                       ((u64)(count > 0xffff ? 0xffff : count) << 48);
>> +       while (count > 0) {
>> +               u64 range, entry;
>> +
>> +               range = count > 0xffff ? 0xffff : count;
>> +               entry = sector | (range << 48);
>>                 buffer[i++] = __cpu_to_le64(entry);
>> -               if (count <= 0xffff)
>> -                       break;
>> -               count -= 0xffff;
>> -               sector += 0xffff;
>> +               count -= range;
>> +               sector += range;
>>         }
>
> I think the problem here is that I can now inject a buffer overflow
> via SG_IO.
>
>>         used_bytes = ALIGN(i * 8, 512);
>> --
>> 2.9.3
>>
--
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



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [SCSI Target Devel]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Linux IIO]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]
  Powered by Linux