diff mbox

[v2] libata-scsi: fix read-only bits checking in ata_mselect_*()

Message ID 578eb0d1.e9b9420a.8694b.fc4c@mx.google.com (mailing list archive)
State Rejected, archived
Headers show

Commit Message

Tom Yan July 19, 2016, 10:59 p.m. UTC
From: Tom Yan <tom.ty89@gmail.com>

Commit 7780081c1f04 ("libata-scsi: Set information sense field for
invalid parameter") changed how ata_mselect_*() make sure read-only
bits are not modified. The new implementation introduced a bug that
the read-only bits in the byte that has a changeable bit will not
be checked.

Added the necessary check, with comments explaining the heuristic.

Signed-off-by: Tom Yan <tom.ty89@gmail.com>

Comments

Tejun Heo July 20, 2016, 3:25 p.m. UTC | #1
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 06:59:23AM +0800, tom.ty89@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Tom Yan <tom.ty89@gmail.com>
> 
> Commit 7780081c1f04 ("libata-scsi: Set information sense field for
> invalid parameter") changed how ata_mselect_*() make sure read-only
> bits are not modified. The new implementation introduced a bug that
> the read-only bits in the byte that has a changeable bit will not
> be checked.
> 
> Added the necessary check, with comments explaining the heuristic.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tom Yan <tom.ty89@gmail.com>

Applied to libata/for-4.8.

This thread was confusing to look at.  Please use the "n/N" sequence
tagging for the patches (the -n option of git-format-patch).

Thanks.
Tejun Heo July 20, 2016, 5:20 p.m. UTC | #2
So, just reverted this patch.

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 06:59:23AM +0800, tom.ty89@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Tom Yan <tom.ty89@gmail.com>
> 
> Commit 7780081c1f04 ("libata-scsi: Set information sense field for
> invalid parameter") changed how ata_mselect_*() make sure read-only
> bits are not modified. The new implementation introduced a bug that
> the read-only bits in the byte that has a changeable bit will not
> be checked.
> 
> Added the necessary check, with comments explaining the heuristic.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tom Yan <tom.ty89@gmail.com>
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c b/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c
> index 06afe63..b47c3ce 100644
> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c
> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c
> @@ -3617,8 +3617,18 @@ static int ata_mselect_caching(struct ata_queued_cmd *qc,
>  	 */
>  	ata_msense_caching(dev->id, mpage, false);
>  	for (i = 0; i < CACHE_MPAGE_LEN - 2; i++) {
> -		if (i == 0)
> -			continue;
> +		/* Check the first byte */
> +		if (i == 0) {
> +			/* except the WCE bit */
> +			if (mpage[i + 2] & 0xfb != buf[i] & 0xfb) {

This not only triggered compiler warning but is actually wrong.  The
above is

	mpage[i + 1] & (0xfb != buf[i]) & 0xfb

which is non-sensical.  So, this patch wasn't tested at all.  Not even
compile test.  Please don't do this.

Thanks.
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c b/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c
index 06afe63..b47c3ce 100644
--- a/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c
+++ b/drivers/ata/libata-scsi.c
@@ -3617,8 +3617,18 @@  static int ata_mselect_caching(struct ata_queued_cmd *qc,
 	 */
 	ata_msense_caching(dev->id, mpage, false);
 	for (i = 0; i < CACHE_MPAGE_LEN - 2; i++) {
-		if (i == 0)
-			continue;
+		/* Check the first byte */
+		if (i == 0) {
+			/* except the WCE bit */
+			if (mpage[i + 2] & 0xfb != buf[i] & 0xfb) {
+				*fp = i;
+				return -EINVAL;
+			} else {
+				continue;
+			}
+		}
+
+		/* Check the remaining bytes */
 		if (mpage[i + 2] != buf[i]) {
 			*fp = i;
 			return -EINVAL;
@@ -3672,8 +3682,18 @@  static int ata_mselect_control(struct ata_queued_cmd *qc,
 	 */
 	ata_msense_control(dev, mpage, false);
 	for (i = 0; i < CONTROL_MPAGE_LEN - 2; i++) {
-		if (i == 0)
-			continue;
+		/* Check the first byte */
+		if (i == 0) {
+			/* except the D_SENSE bit */
+			if (mpage[i + 2] & 0xfb != buf[i] & 0xfb) {
+				*fp = i;
+				return -EINVAL;
+			} else {
+				continue;
+			}
+		}
+
+		/* Check the remaining bytes */
 		if (mpage[2 + i] != buf[i]) {
 			*fp = i;
 			return -EINVAL;