From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Snitzer Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] dm raid: fix parse_raid_params() variable range issue Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 14:16:51 -0400 Message-ID: <20180326181651.GA22251@redhat.com> References: <6386b9f02b3513bd0ba5ddccd437502313448f7d.1521738866.git.heinzm@redhat.com> <20180322194144.GA32294@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com To: Heinz Mauelshagen Cc: dm-devel@redhat.com List-Id: dm-devel.ids On Thu, Mar 22 2018 at 5:13pm -0400, Heinz Mauelshagen wrote: > On 03/22/2018 08:41 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote: > >On Thu, Mar 22 2018 at 1:21pm -0400, > >Heinz Mauelshagen wrote: > > > >>This v2 addresses Mikulas' point about the variable range and folds in > >>"[PATCH] dm raid: use __within_range() more in parse_raid_params()": > >> > >>parse_raid_parames() compared variable "int value" with > >>INT_MAX to prevent overflow of mddev variables set. > >> > >>Change type to "long long value". > >Can you elaborate on the risk/issue that is being fixed here? > = > Fix addresses a coverity finding supporting the full, > positive range of the "struct mddev" int members > set here.=A0 I.e. the "int" cast is compared with INT_MAX. Can you cut and paste the relevant portions of the coverity report? > >>Whilst on it, use __within_range() throughout and > >>add a sync min/max rate check. > >> > >>Signed-off-by: Heinz Mauelshagen > >>--- > >> drivers/md/dm-raid.c | 16 +++++++++++----- > >> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > >> > >>diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-raid.c b/drivers/md/dm-raid.c > >>index c1d1034ff7b7..c0e3d2aa9346 100644 > >>--- a/drivers/md/dm-raid.c > >>+++ b/drivers/md/dm-raid.c > >>@@ -1141,7 +1141,7 @@ static int validate_raid_redundancy(struct raid_s= et *rs) > >> static int parse_raid_params(struct raid_set *rs, struct dm_arg_set *= as, > >> unsigned int num_raid_params) > >> { > >>- int value, raid10_format =3D ALGORITHM_RAID10_DEFAULT; > >>+ long long value, raid10_format =3D ALGORITHM_RAID10_DEFAULT; > >> unsigned int raid10_copies =3D 2; > >> unsigned int i, write_mostly =3D 0; > >> unsigned int region_size =3D 0; > >>@@ -1153,7 +1153,7 @@ static int parse_raid_params(struct raid_set *rs,= struct dm_arg_set *as, > >> arg =3D dm_shift_arg(as); > >> num_raid_params--; /* Account for chunk_size argument */ > >>- if (kstrtoint(arg, 10, &value) < 0) { > >>+ if (kstrtoll(arg, 10, &value) < 0) { > >> rs->ti->error =3D "Bad numerical argument given for chunk_size"; > >> return -EINVAL; > >> } > >>@@ -1315,7 +1315,7 @@ static int parse_raid_params(struct raid_set *rs,= struct dm_arg_set *as, > >> /* > >> * Parameters with number values from here on. > >> */ > >>- if (kstrtoint(arg, 10, &value) < 0) { > >>+ if (kstrtoll(arg, 10, &value) < 0) { > >> rs->ti->error =3D "Bad numerical argument given in raid params"; > >> return -EINVAL; > >> } > >>@@ -1430,7 +1430,7 @@ static int parse_raid_params(struct raid_set *rs,= struct dm_arg_set *as, > >> rs->ti->error =3D "Only one min_recovery_rate argument pair allow= ed"; > >> return -EINVAL; > >> } > >>- if (value > INT_MAX) { > >>+ if (!__within_range(value, 0, INT_MAX)) { > >> rs->ti->error =3D "min_recovery_rate out of range"; > >> return -EINVAL; > >> } > >>@@ -1440,7 +1440,7 @@ static int parse_raid_params(struct raid_set *rs,= struct dm_arg_set *as, > >> rs->ti->error =3D "Only one max_recovery_rate argument pair allow= ed"; > >> return -EINVAL; > >> } > >>- if (value > INT_MAX) { > >>+ if (!__within_range(value, 0, INT_MAX)) { > >> rs->ti->error =3D "max_recovery_rate out of range"; > >> return -EINVAL; > >> } > >>@@ -1472,6 +1472,12 @@ static int parse_raid_params(struct raid_set *rs= , struct dm_arg_set *as, > >> } > >> } > >>+ if (rs->md.sync_speed_max && > >>+ rs->md.sync_speed_max < rs->md.sync_speed_min) { > >>+ rs->ti->error =3D "sync speed max smaller than min"; > >>+ return -EINVAL; > >>+ } > >>+ > >> if (test_bit(__CTR_FLAG_SYNC, &rs->ctr_flags) && > >> test_bit(__CTR_FLAG_NOSYNC, &rs->ctr_flags)) { > >> rs->ti->error =3D "sync and nosync are mutually exclusive"; > >>-- = > >>2.14.3 > >> > >Isn't this last hunk unrelated? > = > No, once using __within_range to ensure positive values > for sync min/max, this hunk ensures that those are sane > if both are set. OK, but pretty much unrelated. I'll leave it foled in but at least mention it in the header. Mike