Re: [050/107] block: check for proper length of iov entriesearlier in blk_rq_map_user_iov()

[Ben Hutchings]

On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 10:14:26AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 03:24:16PM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 15:14 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > 2.6.32-longterm review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let us know.
> > > 
> > > ------------------
> > > 
> > > From: Xiaotian Feng <dfeng@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > commit 5478755616ae2ef1ce144dded589b62b2a50d575 upstream.
> > > 
> > > commit 9284bcf checks for proper length of iov entries in
> > > blk_rq_map_user_iov(). But if the map is unaligned, kernel
> > > will break out the loop without checking for the proper length.
> > > So we need to check the proper length before the unalign check.
> > 
> > This will catch an unaligned zero-length entry.  But there's still no
> > check for zero-length iov entries *after* the unaligned entry.
> > 
> > [...]
> > > --- a/block/blk-map.c
> > > +++ b/block/blk-map.c
> > > @@ -201,12 +201,13 @@ int blk_rq_map_user_iov(struct request_q
> > >  	for (i = 0; i < iov_count; i++) {
> > >  		unsigned long uaddr = (unsigned long)iov[i].iov_base;
> > >  
> > > +		if (!iov[i].iov_len)
> > > +			return -EINVAL;
> > > +
> > >  		if (uaddr & queue_dma_alignment(q)) {
> > >  			unaligned = 1;
> > >  			break;
> > 
> > I think the correct fix is just to remove the 'break'.
> 
> Then the fix should go upstream first :)

But if I'm right, this is a non-fix and doesn't belong in the
longterm update.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking.
                                                              - Albert Camus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/