From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com (perceval.ideasonboard.com [213.167.242.64]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77D9637EFF3; Wed, 22 Jul 2026 12:11:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.167.242.64 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784722300; cv=none; b=GoRiKpc2/LwXnKyV7TDxH9E7b6yQ2LaaBfkpHuZxftKr99TspvgiiiTxUcFD6ey0ZUImCl7yJeIm9J5vADRQElkyzX1BwukJTxkD9wXqzeJAjqqXi5pVdjdemq/vl5C6SaG9KKyIkSs8q+CPJLn5VXr99F2lnfBMiIEIxMRZPDY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784722300; c=relaxed/simple; bh=OZFiJfGH+tCL4cL71/l+DTDw+bpYVgYJt1tADyjISdI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=EeffvexJGMYegDCrv1RbF0E6zdRVBAB1wiz2t7sFwKytKdzO0NED4TsoUDkOgQ8fvT4OsD2c/a/YWWAcWybOBs1/MQKYOtGn7bDR9wfnqRn24nSV4GfCGfy0/gt4WFJ2wBbszZLaslBh2HgYd5wOZTWUIXeOK/EvkaWmAmSKhMo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b=S6EB5i1W; arc=none smtp.client-ip=213.167.242.64 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ideasonboard.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ideasonboard.com header.i=@ideasonboard.com header.b="S6EB5i1W" Received: from killaraus.ideasonboard.com (2001-14ba-70f3-e800--a06.rev.dnainternet.fi [IPv6:2001:14ba:70f3:e800::a06]) by perceval.ideasonboard.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5757C447; Wed, 22 Jul 2026 14:10:36 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ideasonboard.com; s=mail; t=1784722236; bh=OZFiJfGH+tCL4cL71/l+DTDw+bpYVgYJt1tADyjISdI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=S6EB5i1WUdaS+auWVNS9PuYRSJyqwxE2gwR8brupm7IjI0VYtfzJsPpY5zA8FlOdB i2zxCKM2jyGMXtFqZ4Wjdr1UNmTQVrRRvXSnu425vmnzy6HFgzJ+dT2R9qSzf8HLB+ 0E2BylewvudBmVD2gXs79dJjAAEByVBNxZ2ljiBY= Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2026 15:11:35 +0300 From: Laurent Pinchart To: James Bottomley Cc: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev, Chris Mason , Roman Gushchin , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, ksummit@lists.linux.dev, workflows@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: How to fix problems with the sashiko review model Message-ID: <20260722121135.GB629472@killaraus.ideasonboard.com> References: <20260722041257.1557-1-pengpeng@iscas.ac.cn> <20260722042744.5C1B01F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 07:58:48AM -0400, James Bottomley wrote: > There doesn't seem to be a Sashiko list, so I added ksummit as the most > likely one to catch attention. We got this review in SCSI on this > thread: workflows@vger.kernel.org seems a good candidate for discussions about tooling. The mailing list was created to share workflows and tools between maintainers as far as I understand. > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-scsi/20260722041257.1557-1-pengpeng@iscas.ac.cn/ > > But this part of the review > > On Wed, 2026-07-22 at 04:27 +0000, sashiko-bot@kernel.org wrote: > [...] > > > + > > > + reply_len = mpi_reply->MsgLength * 4; > > > + if (reply_len < event_offset || reply_len > ioc->reply_sz) > > > + return false; > > > + > > > + event_data_len = le16_to_cpu(mpi_reply->EventDataLength) * > > > 4; > > > > [Severity: High] > > Is there a Time-of-Check to Time-of-Use window here since mpi_reply > > is read directly from shared DMA memory? > > > > The validation function reads bounds from mpi_reply, but after > > validation passes, mpt3sas_scsih_event_callback() re-reads fields > > like EventDataLength and NumEntries directly from the same DMA-backed > > memory. > > > > Could a malicious device mutate these fields in the window between > > validation and use to bypass the checks introduced by this patch? > > Is wrong. Hardware may never be presumed to be malicious (well, except > if it's virtual hardware provided by an untrusted host to a > confidential guest, but that's a very small list of drivers or it's a > USB or thunderbolt device designed to attack or exfiltrate data from an > unattended system). It may be buggy, but we never presume bugs until > someone finds a device exhibiting the bug in the field (so we don't > proactively fix them). > > The bigger part of this is that I was looking into how to fix this > (which might interest a broader swathe of developers than just SCSI). > I think the fault is in the review prompts: > > https://github.com/masoncl/review-prompts > > And what I need to do is to add an additional drivers.md file to > kernel/subsystems explaining this? If that's right I can send a pull > request, but I thought I'd check here because the audience is much > bigger than if it were to get discussed in the github PR. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart