On Mon, 2007-11-12 at 01:13 +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> On 12/11/2007, James Bottomley <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-11-12 at 00:24 +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > > From: Jesper Juhl <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > in sas_get_phy_change_count(), the line
> > > disc_resp = alloc_smp_resp(DISCOVER_RESP_SIZE);
> > > will allocate 56 bytes due to this define:
> > > #define DISCOVER_RESP_SIZE 56
> > > But, the struct is actually 60 bytes in size.
> > >
> > > So change the define to be
> > > #define DISCOVER_RESP_SIZE sizeof(struct smp_resp)
> > > so we always get the correct size even when people
> > > fiddle with the structure.
> > >
> > > This change also fixes the same problem in
> > > sas_get_phy_attached_sas_addr()
> > >
> > > (Found by the Coverity checker. Compile tested only)
> >
> > Well, your fix is definitely wrong.
> >
> > Could you explain the problem a little more? The discover response SMP
> > frame is 56 bytes as mandated by the standard. I don't see anywhere in
> > the code where we're actually using a value beyond the 56th byte ...
> > where is the problem use?
> >
>
> I haven't found any actual problem *use*, I just looked at the size of
> 'struct smp_resp' and noticed that coverity seemed to be right that 56
> bytes are not sufficient to hold the members of the struct.
There are 11 current (well, as of the 1.1 standard) SMP frame responses.
Each of them is actually a different length. This driver treats SMP
frame response underruns as errors, so the fix you propose would cause
the whole discovery process to collapse.
> There are
> 32 bytes in the first members + the union and I don't see how that can
> ever stay at 56 bytes...? So, we are allocating memory and storing it
> in a 'struct smp_resp *', but we are allocating less than
> sizeof(smp_resp) - how is that not a (potential) problem?
We're not storing anything. We're allocating a byte area for the driver
to deposit a response frame, we know we just sent a SMP DISCOVER
request, so we'd better get a discover response back (and the driver
will error on underrun or overrun, so we know if it returns successfully
that's exatly what we have). The struct smp_resp contains the SMP
invariant header and then a union of all the other response data types,
so as long as we use either the header or the disc piece of the union,
there's no possibility of error, is there?
James
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
