From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: bug report: sd: off by one in sd_read_block_limits() Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 06:31:24 -0700 Message-ID: <20100302133124.GF6567@parisc-linux.org> References: <20100302082135.GA6218@bicker> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from palinux.external.hp.com ([192.25.206.14]:58816 "EHLO mail.parisc-linux.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753056Ab0CBNbZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Mar 2010 08:31:25 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: "Martin K. Petersen" Cc: Dan Carpenter , "James E.J. Bottomley" , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 08:21:41AM -0500, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > >>>>> "Martin" == Martin K Petersen writes: > > Actually, looking closer at the VPD mechanism in e3deec09 we need to fit > the page header as well... These aren't the only two bugs introduced either. If a device has more VPD pages than the length of the buffer that the caller has allocated, we will now incorrectly report that the device doesn't support that page. James, was any problem actually observed that led to e3deec09? I really think you should revert it. -- Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step."