From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Ajaykumar Rajappa" <ajaykr@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
"Christian Borntraeger" <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>,
"Vasily Gorbik" <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
"Alexander Gordeev" <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
"Heiko Carstens" <hca@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] zfcp: Fix integer underflow in status read buffer payload length
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2026 07:11:52 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <sashiko-outbox-167780@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261012070220.2113411-1-ajaykr@linux.ibm.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] scsi: zfcp: redundant trace records generated due to srb->length semantics change
- [Low] scsi: zfcp: 32-to-16 bit truncation breaks trace ambiguity goal for large anomalous lengths
--
commit 461d7fe95c4b53bf3dfb0dc33b64ab47c7c0b0f4
Author: Ajaykumar Rajappa <ajaykr@linux.ibm.com>
zfcp: Fix integer underflow in status read buffer payload length
This patch fixes an integer underflow when calculating the payload
length of a status read buffer in zfcp_dbf_hba_fsf_uss() and
zfcp_dbf_san_in_els(). It validates payload access against the
payload offset before reading payload bytes, while keeping the
serviceability trace records intact.
> diff --git a/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_dbf.c b/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_dbf.c
> index 81fb8af408e9c..fb55d58e363b9 100644
> --- a/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_dbf.c
> +++ b/drivers/s390/scsi/zfcp_dbf.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -253,11 +254,15 @@ void zfcp_dbf_hba_fsf_uss(char *tag, struct zfcp_fsf_req *req)
> rec->u.uss.s_id = ntoh24(srb->s_id);
> memcpy(&rec->u.uss.res4, &srb->res4, sizeof(rec->u.uss.res4));
>
> - /* status read buffer payload length */
> - rec->pl_len = (!srb->length) ? 0 : srb->length -
> - offsetof(struct fsf_status_read_buffer, payload);
> + /* Unconditionally store value-shifted SRB length: pl_len is a bijective
> + * map of srb->length (pl_len + pay_offset == srb->length). A bogus
> + * srb->length < pay_offset wraps to a large non-zero pl_len, which is
> + * unambiguously distinguishable from pl_len == 0(genuine empty payload)
> + */
> + rec->pl_len = (u16)(srb->length - pay_offset);
[Severity: Low]
Could this 16-bit truncation break the trace ambiguity goal for large
anomalous lengths?
The inline comment claims this creates a "bijective map" that makes anomalous
lengths unambiguously distinguishable from a genuine empty payload. However,
srb->length is a 32-bit field, whereas rec->pl_len is a 16-bit field.
If the hardware provides an anomalously large length (for example,
srb->length == 65536 + pay_offset), the subtraction yields 65536, which
truncates to exactly 0 when cast to u16.
Would this map the anomalous length to exactly 0, making it entirely
indistinguishable from a genuine empty payload and mathematically violating
the stated tracing design goal?
[ ... ]
> @@ -714,17 +719,28 @@ void zfcp_dbf_san_in_els(char *tag, struct zfcp_fsf_req *fsf)
> struct zfcp_dbf *dbf = fsf->adapter->dbf;
> struct fsf_status_read_buffer *srb =
> (struct fsf_status_read_buffer *) fsf->data;
> - u16 length;
> + u16 length, cap_length;
> struct scatterlist sg;
> + const u32 pay_offset = offsetof(struct fsf_status_read_buffer, payload);
>
> if (unlikely(!debug_level_enabled(dbf->san, ZFCP_DBF_SAN_LEVEL)))
> return;
>
> - length = (u16)(srb->length -
> - offsetof(struct fsf_status_read_buffer, payload));
> - sg_init_one(&sg, srb->payload.data, length);
> - zfcp_dbf_san(tag, dbf, "san_els", &sg, ZFCP_DBF_SAN_ELS, length,
> - fsf->req_id, ntoh24(srb->d_id), length);
> + /*
> + * Store the original channel-reported SRB length in pl_len.
> + * cap_length specifies the number of payload bytes that may be read.
> + */
> + length = (u16)srb->length;
> + cap_length = 0;
> + if (srb->length > pay_offset) {
> + /* Payload present beyond the fixed header. */
> + cap_length = (u16)(srb->length - pay_offset);
> + sg_init_one(&sg, srb->payload.data, cap_length);
> + }
> +
> + zfcp_dbf_san(tag, dbf, "san_els", cap_length ? &sg : NULL,
> + ZFCP_DBF_SAN_ELS, length, fsf->req_id,
> + ntoh24(srb->d_id), cap_length);
[Severity: Low]
Does passing the full srb->length to zfcp_dbf_san() break the length
optimization check inside the trace function?
Inside zfcp_dbf_san(), this length argument is compared against a maximum
inline payload size (ZFCP_DBF_SAN_MAX_PAYLOAD, 48 bytes) to optimize tracing
by determining if a separate payload trace record can be skipped:
if (len <= rec_len)
goto out;
Because the full srb->length includes the 60-byte fixed header (pay_offset),
length will always be at least 60 for any valid incoming ELS request.
Consequently, the check length <= rec_len will always evaluate to false.
Can this lead to unconditional and redundant generation of payload trace
records for all payloads, needlessly duplicating data and wasting trace
buffer space?
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261012070220.2113411-1-ajaykr@linux.ibm.com?part=1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-12 7:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-12 7:02 [PATCH v5] zfcp: Fix integer underflow in status read buffer payload length Ajaykumar Rajappa
2026-10-12 7:11 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2026-10-12 7:14 Ajaykumar Rajappa
2026-10-12 7:29 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-08 10:17 Ajaykumar Rajappa
2026-10-08 10:28 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-08 9:57 Ajaykumar Rajappa
2026-10-08 10:08 ` sashiko-bot
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=sashiko-outbox-167780@kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=agordeev@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=ajaykr@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=borntraeger@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
/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