From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA03DC43331 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 17:49:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82905206B2 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 17:49:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727634AbhADRtp (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jan 2021 12:49:45 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:34360 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727566AbhADRto (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Jan 2021 12:49:44 -0500 Received: from mail-pg1-x535.google.com (mail-pg1-x535.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::535]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9AEAC061343 for ; Mon, 4 Jan 2021 09:48:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pg1-x535.google.com with SMTP id i7so19509847pgc.8 for ; Mon, 04 Jan 2021 09:48:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linuxace-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=65owITg5bptvn1j++cmPjkA/zjpHPF/EDZomkuXKGqY=; b=uY/UlD7z90jZJguSr4Qov6hTFwNsacX2P0geVNecyR5ZH7ZJamw0DXTNljsbMPh9PS MFtO+9k1uqqfJPP4oxrzK1VHY59gJeN3JZOQsggZWLYox/RAcbwzjbXHZTbFVt/p2hXc 5PsPpT843IKgWkVa89xYlfbHBCRM9SdJW1eLo4vZRudTVCbP03yEes6Of/ssVlo1bwwD lPisb7pbEW5ixCwrXhMykOxku5XX94zl1lW46mkndO08IyIeRjTZFa0pUxIpRkCFgRPq ug5zNvBVQsrv3jFZjiOXLHjS9S5H7+LP8pFgaUWXRdyTsJ7CT9WbL3iRXfIFRSKMSDCy Sh6w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=65owITg5bptvn1j++cmPjkA/zjpHPF/EDZomkuXKGqY=; b=Fh2QSzBcXNckZlMgkUuglexE35qDALO2w8rTSvFbHFqC93PdFHxcFjfxUJx/uXW5OG 4w70v2Des2t9LtxePafqZJBPItWR6HVsMWzlCkP7jJIVScSdtiZRGBpUZ1zf6RiEb3+X ZyvypkTVCsBiz+KkpuJIjGc+Zr0GETRoE4ic4Z1qyqlzHVx74t/q65euXxXaAbertRfX TZ95DMbJ76oTsToEy775h2OTIZlDTVBY1aIKOUPDAbPFYJ5uhxKxZYDpbjXD4JCNUygJ DrGcyf4BXH8FQKsX6k3OUJTMJEOe6XYddDJXVTi1200I6RQ6xyUnOnicKWhNSDFwaZSR qZWg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532trxzhDFbSi+clcPFwII+ZO0cBxMJ+zYFhV13E31HjhHjpfn4u Ws1BQxOvEcv40E0vn0Cyf2dUmA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzyl3JwJlJhdPc5Jfiknw7ZF3oAzN30Yms3O1ELx9wLiAGjFS0agKxHvleXTZGJgkZVtJCRqw== X-Received: by 2002:a63:520e:: with SMTP id g14mr24089127pgb.378.1609782510541; Mon, 04 Jan 2021 09:48:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from home.linuxace.com (cpe-23-243-7-246.socal.res.rr.com. [23.243.7.246]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p9sm34954pjb.3.2021.01.04.09.48.28 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 04 Jan 2021 09:48:29 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2021 09:48:26 -0800 From: Phil Oester To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Kashyap Desai , Sumit Saxena , Shivasharan S , "James E.J. Bottomley" , "Martin K. Petersen" , Christoph Hellwig , "# 3.4.x" , Anand Lodnoor , Chandrakanth Patil , Hannes Reinecke , megaraidlinux.pdl@broadcom.com, linux-scsi , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] scsi: megaraid_sas: check user-provided offsets Message-ID: <20210104174826.GA76610@home.linuxace.com> References: <20200908213715.3553098-1-arnd@arndb.de> <20200908213715.3553098-2-arnd@arndb.de> <20201231001553.GB16945@home.linuxace.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jan 03, 2021 at 05:26:29PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > Thank you for the report and bisecting the issue, and sorry this broke > your system! > > Fortunately, the patch is fairly small, so there are only a limited number > of things that could go wrong. I haven't tried to analyze that message, > but I have two ideas: > > a) The added ioc->sense_off check gets triggered and the code relies > on the data being written outside of the structure > > b) the address actually needs to always be written as a 64-bit value > regardless of the instance->consistent_mask_64bit flag, as the > driver did before. This looked like it was done in error. > > Can you try the patch below instead of the revert and see if that > resolves the regression, and if it triggers the warning message I > add? Thanks Arnd, I tried your patch and it resolves the regression. It does not trigger the warning message you added. Phil