lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [May]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] scsi: Let scsi_execute_cmd() mark args->sshdr as invalid
From
On 11.05.23 15:10, Martin Wilck wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-05-11 at 14:34 +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> Some callers of scsi_execute_cmd() (like e.g. sd_spinup_disk()) are
>> passing an uninitialized struct sshdr and don't look at the return
>> value of scsi_execute_cmd() before looking at the contents of that
>> struct.
>>
>> This can result in false positives when looking for specific error
>> conditions.
>>
>> In order to fix that let scsi_execute_cmd() zero sshdr-
>>> response_code,
>> resulting in scsi_sense_valid() returning false.
>>
>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>> Fixes: 3949e2f04262 ("scsi: simplify scsi_execute_req_flags")
>> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
>> ---
>> I'm not aware of any real error having happened due to this problem,
>> but I thought it should be fixed anyway.
>> I _think_ 3949e2f04262 was introducing the problem, but I'm not 100%
>> sure it is really the commit to be blamed.
>> ---
>>  drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c | 14 ++++++++++----
>>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> One nitpick below, otherwise it looks good to me.
>
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
>> index b7c569a42aa4..923336620bff 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
>> @@ -209,11 +209,17 @@ int scsi_execute_cmd(struct scsi_device *sdev,
>> const unsigned char *cmd,
>>         struct scsi_cmnd *scmd;
>>         int ret;
>>
>> -       if (!args)
>> +       if (!args) {
>>                 args = &default_args;
>> -       else if (WARN_ON_ONCE(args->sense &&
>> -                             args->sense_len !=
>> SCSI_SENSE_BUFFERSIZE))
>> -               return -EINVAL;
>> +       } else {
>> +               /* Mark sense data to be invalid. */
>> +               if (args->sshdr)
>> +                       args->sshdr->response_code = 0;
>
> We know for certain that sizeof(*sshdr) is 8 bytes, and will most
> probably remain so. Thus
>
> memset(sshdr, 0, sizeof(*sshdr))
>
> would result in more efficient code.

I fail to see why zeroing a single byte would be less efficient than zeroing
a possibly unaligned 8-byte area.


Juergen
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-keys][unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-05-11 15:20    [W:0.466 / U:0.308 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site