Linux ATA/IDE development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>
To: Niklas Cassel <cassel@kernel.org>,
	Zhao Gongyi <zhaogongyi@bytedance.com>
Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ata: libata-scsi: reject non-PIO protocols for READ/WRITE MULTIPLE
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2026 17:52:11 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <425aaec6-89bf-4150-ab87-360cc30dc72a@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <avLYvtmnedp5FXSX@ryzen>

On 2026/11/10 17:41, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> There is nothing in SAT specs that requires us to validate the protocol field.
> When using normal (non-passthrough commands), the protocol field is initialized
> by the regular SCSI to ATA translation done by libata.
> 
> For passthrough commands, it comes from the user.
> 
> Not only does it come from the user, it requires CAP_SYS_RAWIO:
> 
> scsi_cmd_allowed() {
>         if (capable(CAP_SYS_RAWIO))
>                 return true;
>     ...
> 
> 
> (ATA_12 / ATA_16 / ATA_32 will all return false, so not allowed for a regular
> user.)
> 
> And... even if the user sends a command with a protocol that is not as per
> ACS spec, the command should time out and EH should reset the device.
> 
> 
> So... If the user sends a passthrough command with the wrong protocol...
> Well, that is on the user, no?
> (It also requires CAP_SYS_RAWIO)
> 
> 
> If we were to add protocol checks all passthrough commands, then we should
> not only check READ/WRITE MULTIPLE, we should check other commands like
> WRITE SECTORS (30h) and IDENTIFY DEVICE (ECh) too.
> 
> But, I don't think we want that. Damien, thoughts?

Unless we are talking about a command that libata-scsi emulates, passthrough
commands should not be parsed. We do not want that. So unless the bad SG_IO
command can crash the kernel, we should do nothing if the user sends a bad
command and it fails. We can let the drive fail it, even if that leads to drive
resets etc. As Niklas pointed out, SG_IO is priviledged, so it is not like any
user can create a DOS with bad SG_IO commands.

Also, the use case for this is a little silly in my opinion... Who wants to send
a PIO multi-sector IO using a modern command like ATA 32? libata supports that
if that is all that the drive can do. If the drive can do DMA and/or NCQ, then
better commands will be used without relaying on a PIO passthrough command.


-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research

  reply	other threads:[~2026-11-11  8:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-10-28 14:04 [PATCH] ata: libata-scsi: reject non-PIO protocols for READ/WRITE MULTIPLE Zhao Gongyi
2026-11-10  8:41 ` Niklas Cassel
2026-11-11  8:52   ` Damien Le Moal [this message]
2026-11-11 10:12     ` Zhao Gongyi

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=425aaec6-89bf-4150-ab87-360cc30dc72a@kernel.org \
    --to=dlemoal@kernel.org \
    --cc=cassel@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-ide@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=zhaogongyi@bytedance.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox