Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] rq_pages bounds checking

[Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@oracle.com>]

> On Mar 18, 2023, at 6:04 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 2023-03-17 at 19:01 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
>> A slightly modified take on Jeff's earlier patches, tested with
>> both NFSv3 and NFSv4.1 via simple fault injection in
>> svc_rqst_replace_page().
>> 
>> In general I'm in favor of more rq_pages bounds checking by
>> replacing direct modification of the rq_respages and rq_next_page
>> fields with accessor functions.
>> 
>> ---
>> 
>> Chuck Lever (2):
>>      SUNRPC: add bounds checking to svc_rqst_replace_page
>>      NFSD: Watch for rq_pages bounds checking errors in nfsd_splice_actor()
>> 
>> Jeff Layton (1):
>>      nfsd: don't replace page in rq_pages if it's a continuation of last page
>> 
>> 
>> fs/nfsd/vfs.c                 | 15 +++++++++++++--
>> include/linux/sunrpc/svc.h    |  2 +-
>> include/trace/events/sunrpc.h | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> net/sunrpc/svc.c              | 15 ++++++++++++++-
>> 4 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>> 
>> --
>> Chuck Lever
>> 
> 
> Looks good, Chuck, thanks. You can add this to the last two:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>

Excellent, thanks!

When I started I expected 3/3 to be more substantial, but since it's
just a handful of lines and the patch descriptions are about the same,
I'm going to squash 2/3 and 3/3 together.

Only question is whether to apply that to nfsd-next or nfsd-fixes.
Since it's a defensive change, I was thinking nfsd-next. Let me know
if you think it should get merged sooner.


--
Chuck Lever