diff mbox series

badblocks: avoid checking invalid range in badblocks_check()

Message ID 20231224002820.20234-1-colyli@suse.de
State New
Headers
Series badblocks: avoid checking invalid range in badblocks_check() |

Commit Message

Coly Li Dec. 24, 2023, 12:28 a.m. UTC 
  If prev_badblocks() returns '-1', it means no valid badblocks record
before the checking range. It doesn't make sense to check whether
the input checking range is overlapped with the non-existed invalid
front range.

This patch checkes whether 'prev >= 0' is true before calling
overlap_front(), to void such invalid operations.

Fixes: 3ea3354cb9f0 ("badblocks: improve badblocks_check() for multiple ranges handling")
Reported-and-tested-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Coly Li <colyli@suse.de>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/nvdimm/3035e75a-9be0-4bc3-8d4a-6e52c207f277@leemhuis.info/
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: Geliang Tang <geliang.tang@suse.com>
Cc: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
Cc: Vishal L Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>
Cc: Xiao Ni <xni@redhat.com>
---
 block/badblocks.c | 6 ++++--
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Comments

Coly Li Dec. 24, 2023, 12:32 a.m. UTC | #1 
> 2023年12月24日 08:28，Coly Li <colyli@suse.de> 写道：
> 
> If prev_badblocks() returns '-1', it means no valid badblocks record
> before the checking range. It doesn't make sense to check whether
> the input checking range is overlapped with the non-existed invalid
> front range.
> 
> This patch checkes whether 'prev >= 0' is true before calling
> overlap_front(), to void such invalid operations.
> 
> Fixes: 3ea3354cb9f0 ("badblocks: improve badblocks_check() for multiple ranges handling")
> Reported-and-tested-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Coly Li <colyli@suse.de>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/nvdimm/3035e75a-9be0-4bc3-8d4a-6e52c207f277@leemhuis.info/
> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> Cc: Geliang Tang <geliang.tang@suse.com>
> Cc: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
> Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
> Cc: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
> Cc: Vishal L Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>
> Cc: Xiao Ni <xni@redhat.com>
> ---
> block/badblocks.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Hi Jens,

Is it possible to take this fix into 6.7 still? Thanks in advance.

Coly Li


[snipped]
Jens Axboe Dec. 24, 2023, 1:38 a.m. UTC | #2 
On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 08:28:20 +0800, Coly Li wrote:
> If prev_badblocks() returns '-1', it means no valid badblocks record
> before the checking range. It doesn't make sense to check whether
> the input checking range is overlapped with the non-existed invalid
> front range.
> 
> This patch checkes whether 'prev >= 0' is true before calling
> overlap_front(), to void such invalid operations.
> 
> [...]

Applied, thanks!

[1/1] badblocks: avoid checking invalid range in badblocks_check()
      commit: 146e843f6b09271233c021b1677e561b7dc16303

Best regards,
Jens Axboe Dec. 24, 2023, 1:38 a.m. UTC | #3 
On 12/23/23 5:32 PM, Coly Li wrote:
>> 2023?12?24? 08:28?Coly Li <colyli@suse.de> ???
>>
>> If prev_badblocks() returns '-1', it means no valid badblocks record
>> before the checking range. It doesn't make sense to check whether
>> the input checking range is overlapped with the non-existed invalid
>> front range.
>>
>> This patch checkes whether 'prev >= 0' is true before calling
>> overlap_front(), to void such invalid operations.
>>
>> Fixes: 3ea3354cb9f0 ("badblocks: improve badblocks_check() for multiple ranges handling")
>> Reported-and-tested-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Coly Li <colyli@suse.de>
>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/nvdimm/3035e75a-9be0-4bc3-8d4a-6e52c207f277@leemhuis.info/
>> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
>> Cc: Geliang Tang <geliang.tang@suse.com>
>> Cc: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
>> Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
>> Cc: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
>> Cc: Vishal L Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>
>> Cc: Xiao Ni <xni@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> block/badblocks.c | 6 ++++--
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> Hi Jens,
> 
> Is it possible to take this fix into 6.7 still? Thanks in advance.

Yep, we're still a few weeks out, so not a problem.
Coly Li Dec. 24, 2023, 2:11 a.m. UTC | #4 
> 2023年12月24日 09:38，Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> 写道：
> 
> On 12/23/23 5:32 PM, Coly Li wrote:
>>> 2023?12?24? 08:28?Coly Li <colyli@suse.de> ???
>>> 
>>> If prev_badblocks() returns '-1', it means no valid badblocks record
>>> before the checking range. It doesn't make sense to check whether
>>> the input checking range is overlapped with the non-existed invalid
>>> front range.
>>> 
>>> This patch checkes whether 'prev >= 0' is true before calling
>>> overlap_front(), to void such invalid operations.
>>> 
>>> Fixes: 3ea3354cb9f0 ("badblocks: improve badblocks_check() for multiple ranges handling")
>>> Reported-and-tested-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Coly Li <colyli@suse.de>
>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/nvdimm/3035e75a-9be0-4bc3-8d4a-6e52c207f277@leemhuis.info/
>>> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
>>> Cc: Geliang Tang <geliang.tang@suse.com>
>>> Cc: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
>>> Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
>>> Cc: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
>>> Cc: Vishal L Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>
>>> Cc: Xiao Ni <xni@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>> block/badblocks.c | 6 ++++--
>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> 
>> Hi Jens,
>> 
>> Is it possible to take this fix into 6.7 still? Thanks in advance.
> 
> Yep, we're still a few weeks out, so not a problem.

Jes and Ira,

Thank you all for fast response during holidays.

Happy holidays and merry Christmas!

Coly Li
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/block/badblocks.c b/block/badblocks.c
index fc92d4e18aa3..db4ec8b9b2a8 100644
--- a/block/badblocks.c
+++ b/block/badblocks.c
@@ -1312,12 +1312,14 @@  static int _badblocks_check(struct badblocks *bb, sector_t s, int sectors,
 	prev = prev_badblocks(bb, &bad, hint);
 
 	/* start after all badblocks */
-	if ((prev + 1) >= bb->count && !overlap_front(bb, prev, &bad)) {
+	if ((prev >= 0) &&
+	    ((prev + 1) >= bb->count) && !overlap_front(bb, prev, &bad)) {
 		len = sectors;
 		goto update_sectors;
 	}
 
-	if (overlap_front(bb, prev, &bad)) {
+	/* Overlapped with front badblocks record */
+	if ((prev >= 0) && overlap_front(bb, prev, &bad)) {
 		if (BB_ACK(p[prev]))
 			acked_badblocks++;
 		else