From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B750E1DED49; Wed, 6 Nov 2024 12:18:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.163.158.5 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730895537; cv=none; b=BzPndzxtQdr2G1pI02B1n9v0l8OHzJmt/Upi/JcudkSdXuEGqo/bUSJK55FHLBH2m8G7JJ+DFO/g23nHE0zneTIhhgkbM/7fEHqIFTe0ZH4Fd4dN15CKv6QJ/9k+JfQMCmJKqOE6GIxLOKQiJBD/mzClbpV8c83zjEJdvsdZJR8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1730895537; c=relaxed/simple; bh=3CVeQLY73Hqsc1GqMKPPC/Jjjw1e0xTEovtO+WzIxIk=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=CJMfvdxKGh1unsOG27GgZJOYMAIn8A5HRf1TrBwYcuDiIgGFwX2VHsK6VFVsgZbRZhz33SxjsWt3nRiKPENxLFSTE4K3r3muvK2EIt4DnnCF1rzk6WpWHfelZ9s57XueAd2tVDUJtJ/l+bUe+nI/lSsAMjh+NZ0xOXu/wAuSe74= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b=RppNg5Yr; arc=none smtp.client-ip=148.163.158.5 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.ibm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.b="RppNg5Yr" Received: from pps.filterd (m0353725.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 4A6AAO57000941; Wed, 6 Nov 2024 12:18:52 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to; s=pp1; bh=JLYFSO Qgx67CtVFvTm+73ZaW44P08m56s6HHeuQHQyY=; b=RppNg5Yr4ThbRvrBQWlNuo cq3rlGZiko0PhQ1qbHDxlBnZDNqDEoj+96OQqA4pCWlM0JvdnlkHTJS1stWEAiaz Vsm2SF0NQdCPZjdMyr5jdv1rik69VFtflQAdKkYE5BroiX4Qp4DxEBtF93GPOUE6 rDEnFLHJRb+OkGpK3dhfSMsmDTnQr958uXW3moopWDGHEh9gT5k9Bbq6xilt9r4B ooKHqgKoJTRdPfQtyEFSeraYB6F0fwAi9WkZKNJJSlKWKUpdvVGbTCV1yfJEiqFz 0//HlENe2XhPKswT1/IshYScV0ZxW/A/S7bfbEfRzVQsc5wwNAo49vhOk/ZUp2vg == Received: from ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (db.9e.1632.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [50.22.158.219]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 42r6fb0nh2-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 06 Nov 2024 12:18:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pps.filterd (ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 4A65OI45012253; Wed, 6 Nov 2024 12:18:51 GMT Received: from smtprelay02.dal12v.mail.ibm.com ([172.16.1.4]) by ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 42p140x1fm-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 06 Nov 2024 12:18:51 +0000 Received: from smtpav06.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav06.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com [10.39.53.233]) by smtprelay02.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 4A6CIogJ46006724 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 6 Nov 2024 12:18:50 GMT Received: from smtpav06.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20D465804E; Wed, 6 Nov 2024 12:18:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav06.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9A3F5803F; Wed, 6 Nov 2024 12:18:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.155.199.163] (unknown [9.155.199.163]) by smtpav06.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 6 Nov 2024 12:18:47 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <479b6b3e-72d4-4755-acf4-11011b822682@linux.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2024 13:18:46 +0100 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] s390/uvdevice: Support longer secret lists To: Heiko Carstens , Janosch Frank Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Franzki , Christoph Schlameuss , Claudio Imbrenda , borntraeger@linux.ibm.com References: <20241104153609.1361388-1-seiden@linux.ibm.com> <20241106081004.16507-A-hca@linux.ibm.com> <20241106091345.16507-B-hca@linux.ibm.com> Content-Language: en-US, en-HK From: Steffen Eiden In-Reply-To: <20241106091345.16507-B-hca@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: w8PSHmkbUXE0IvuomI-4rejHQxHworza X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: w8PSHmkbUXE0IvuomI-4rejHQxHworza X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1051,Hydra:6.0.680,FMLib:17.12.62.30 definitions=2024-10-15_01,2024-10-11_01,2024-09-30_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 malwarescore=0 spamscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 clxscore=1015 phishscore=0 priorityscore=1501 suspectscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0 mlxlogscore=695 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.19.0-2409260000 definitions=main-2411060099 On 11/6/24 10:13 AM, Heiko Carstens wrote: > On Wed, Nov 06, 2024 at 09:54:33AM +0100, Janosch Frank wrote: >> On 11/6/24 9:10 AM, Heiko Carstens wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 04:36:09PM +0100, Steffen Eiden wrote: >>>> + copy_len = sizeof(list->secrets[0]) * list->num_secr_stored; >>>> + WARN_ON(copy_len > sizeof(list->secrets)); >>> >>> Is this really possible? Without checking the documentation I guess >>> this is not possible and therefore the WARN_ON() should be removed. >>> >> >> This happening requires a FW error, no? >> list->num_secr_stored is reported by FW and would need to be >85. >> >> We could clamp it down to 85 secrets / 4k - sizeof(header) with a >> WARN_ON_ONCE() to catch FW problems if that suits you more. > > If this would be an *error* why even add this check? We have tons of > code without doing sanity checks for firmware provided values - where > should we start or end? Yes, this would be an error. > > So imho: either remove this check if this would be firmware error, > unless there is a good reason do keep this check, or if this is not an > error convert to WARN_ON_ONCE() and limit the copy_to_user(). OK. I'll remove the check. Sending a fix-up reply.