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 4B8ABC2D0A3 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 07:02:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6D5220747 for ; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 07:02:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mg.codeaurora.org header.i=@mg.codeaurora.org header.b="v/QiIfKq" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1736788AbgJZHCk (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Oct 2020 03:02:40 -0400 Received: from m42-4.mailgun.net ([69.72.42.4]:47924 "EHLO m42-4.mailgun.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1736776AbgJZHCk (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Oct 2020 03:02:40 -0400 DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; v=1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mg.codeaurora.org; q=dns/txt; s=smtp; t=1603695759; h=Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Cc: To: From: Date: Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type: MIME-Version: Sender; bh=4W30NrG0crD/eXRgkUetS2eftLP50C0CS9VL2EWCFO0=; b=v/QiIfKq0HBGwKPOaehyLVfS1qAEo7/LssOUxg2WtuARGXY3xN6HemluDBB7HzHqTUPxjPd7 eQ9vo+mjZnREKERf29TPXqq808DyyFSRlNzXhX2ydHpU+kcdKfnBpNXU69aYHoMHVRi+TCD2 xWsrAR1wPbNmmlFdx4lu8CfonnE= X-Mailgun-Sending-Ip: 69.72.42.4 X-Mailgun-Sid: WyJlNmU5NiIsICJsaW51eC1zY3NpQHZnZXIua2VybmVsLm9yZyIsICJiZTllNGEiXQ== Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org (ec2-35-166-182-171.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [35.166.182.171]) by smtp-out-n05.prod.us-east-1.postgun.com with SMTP id 5f96745babdbaddfebb337fe (version=TLS1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256); Mon, 26 Oct 2020 07:01:47 GMT Sender: cang=codeaurora.org@mg.codeaurora.org Received: by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id B14C2C433FF; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 07:01:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.codeaurora.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: cang) by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E6EDCC433F0; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 07:01:45 +0000 (UTC) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 15:01:45 +0800 From: Can Guo To: Avri Altman Cc: asutoshd@codeaurora.org, nguyenb@codeaurora.org, hongwus@codeaurora.org, rnayak@codeaurora.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@android.com, saravanak@google.com, salyzyn@google.com, Alim Akhtar , "James E.J. Bottomley" , "Martin K. Petersen" , Stanley Chu , Bean Huo , Bart Van Assche , open list Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] scsi: ufs: Fix unexpected values get from ufshcd_read_desc_param() In-Reply-To: References: <1603346348-14149-1-git-send-email-cang@codeaurora.org> <5271e570f2e38770da3b23f13e739e41@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: <28555cab045fb631c91262c77b71d9fc@codeaurora.org> X-Sender: cang@codeaurora.org User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.9 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On 2020-10-26 13:22, Avri Altman wrote: >> On 2020-10-22 14:37, Avri Altman wrote: >> >> Since WB feature has been added, WB related sysfs entries can be >> >> accessed >> >> even when an UFS device does not support WB feature. In that case, the >> >> descriptors which are not supported by the UFS device may be wrongly >> >> reported when they are accessed from their corrsponding sysfs entries. >> >> Fix it by adding a sanity check of parameter offset against the actual >> >> decriptor length.s >> > This should be a bug fix IMO, and be dealt with similarly like >> > ufshcd_is_wb_attrs or ufshcd_is_wb_flag. >> > Thanks, >> > Avri >> >> Could you please elaborate on ufshcd_is_wb_attrs or ufshcd_is_wb_flag? >> Sorry that I don't quite get it. > Since this change is only protecting illegal access from sysfs entries, > I am suggesting to handle it there, just like ufshcd_is_wb_attrs or > ufshcd_is_wb_flag > Are doing it for flags and attributes. > > Thanks, > Avri This is a general problem - if later we have HPB entries added into sysfs, we will hit it again. We cannot keep adding checks like ufshcd_is_xxx_attrs or ufshcd_is_xxx_flag to block them, right? Thanks, Can Guo.