From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3swKGJ17BCzDt2l for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2016 18:38:32 +1100 (AEDT) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 09:38:21 +0200 From: Johannes Thumshirn To: Steffen Maier Cc: "Martin K . Petersen" , Christoph Hellwig , Hannes Reinecke , Linux Kernel Mailinglist , Linux SCSI Mailinglist , Martin Schwidefsky , Heiko Carstens , Anil Gurumurthy , Sudarsana Kalluru , "James E.J. Bottomley" , Tyrel Datwyler , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Michael Ellerman , Johannes Thumshirn , James Smart , Dick Kennedy , "supporter:QLOGIC QLA2XXX FC-SCSI DRIVER" , "open list:S390 ZFCP DRIVER" , "open list:LINUX FOR POWERPC (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" , "open list:FCOE SUBSYSTEM (libfc, libfcoe, fcoe)" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/16] scsi: don't use fc_bsg_job::request and fc_bsg_job::reply directly Message-ID: <20161014073821.qvkpjtwraqnwzzs3@linux-x5ow.site> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 In-Reply-To: List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 05:55:11PM +0200, Steffen Maier wrote: > Hm, still behaves for me like I reported for v2: > http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=147637177902937&w=2 Hi Steffen, Can you please try the following on top of 2/16? diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c index 4149dac..baebaab 100644 --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_transport_fc.c @@ -3786,6 +3786,12 @@ enum fc_dispatch_result { int cmdlen = sizeof(uint32_t); /* start with length of msgcode */ int ret; + /* check if we really have all the request data needed */ + if (job->request_len < cmdlen) { + ret = -ENOMSG; + goto fail_host_msg; + } + /* Validate the host command */ switch (bsg_request->msgcode) { case FC_BSG_HST_ADD_RPORT: @@ -3831,12 +3837,6 @@ enum fc_dispatch_result { goto fail_host_msg; } - /* check if we really have all the request data needed */ - if (job->request_len < cmdlen) { - ret = -ENOMSG; - goto fail_host_msg; - } - ret = i->f->bsg_request(job); if (!ret) return FC_DISPATCH_UNLOCKED; @@ -3887,6 +3887,12 @@ enum fc_dispatch_result { int cmdlen = sizeof(uint32_t); /* start with length of msgcode */ int ret; + /* check if we really have all the request data needed */ + if (job->request_len < cmdlen) { + ret = -ENOMSG; + goto fail_rport_msg; + } + /* Validate the rport command */ switch (bsg_request->msgcode) { case FC_BSG_RPT_ELS: The rational behind this is, in fc_req_to_bsgjob() we're assigning job->request as req->cmd and job->request_len = req->cmd_len. But without checkinf job->request_len we don't know whether we're save to touch job->request (a.k.a. bsg_request). In the meanwhile I try to reproduce your report here. Thanks, Johannes -- Johannes Thumshirn Storage jthumshirn@suse.de +49 911 74053 689 SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) Key fingerprint = EC38 9CAB C2C4 F25D 8600 D0D0 0393 969D 2D76 0850