piaojun
2018-Mar-28 07:02 UTC
[Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2/o2hb: check len for bio_add_page() to avoid submitting incorrect bio
Hi Joseph, On 2018/3/28 12:58, Joseph Qi wrote:> > > On 18/3/28 11:50, piaojun wrote: >> We need check len for bio_add_page() to make sure the bio has been set up >> correctly, otherwise we may submit incorrect data to device. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jun Piao <piaojun at huawei.com> >> Reviewed-by: Yiwen Jiang <jiangyiwen at huawei.com> >> --- >> fs/ocfs2/cluster/heartbeat.c | 11 ++++++++++- >> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/cluster/heartbeat.c b/fs/ocfs2/cluster/heartbeat.c >> index ea8c551..43ad79f 100644 >> --- a/fs/ocfs2/cluster/heartbeat.c >> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/cluster/heartbeat.c >> @@ -570,7 +570,16 @@ static struct bio *o2hb_setup_one_bio(struct o2hb_region *reg, >> current_page, vec_len, vec_start); >> >> len = bio_add_page(bio, page, vec_len, vec_start); >> - if (len != vec_len) break; >> + if (len != vec_len) { >> + mlog(ML_ERROR, "Adding page[%d] to bio failed, " >> + "page %p, len %d, vec_len %u, vec_start %u, " >> + "bi_sector %llu\n", current_page, page, len, >> + vec_len, vec_start, >> + (unsigned long long)bio->bi_iter.bi_sector); >> + bio_put(bio); >> + bio = ERR_PTR(-EFAULT); > > IMO, EFAULT is not an appropriate error code here. > If __bio_add_page returns 0, some are caused by bio checking failed. > Also I've noticed that several other callers just use ENOMEM, so I think > EINVAL or ENOMEM may be better.__bio_add_page has been deleted in patch c66a14d07c13, and I notice that other callers always use -EFAULT or -EIO. I'm afraid we are not basing on the same kernel source. thansk, Jun> > Thanks, > Joseph > >> + return bio; >> + } >> >> cs += vec_len / (PAGE_SIZE/spp); >> vec_start = 0; >> > . >
Joseph Qi
2018-Mar-28 09:50 UTC
[Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2/o2hb: check len for bio_add_page() to avoid submitting incorrect bio
On 18/3/28 15:02, piaojun wrote:> Hi Joseph, > > On 2018/3/28 12:58, Joseph Qi wrote: >> >> >> On 18/3/28 11:50, piaojun wrote: >>> We need check len for bio_add_page() to make sure the bio has been set up >>> correctly, otherwise we may submit incorrect data to device. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jun Piao <piaojun at huawei.com> >>> Reviewed-by: Yiwen Jiang <jiangyiwen at huawei.com> >>> --- >>> fs/ocfs2/cluster/heartbeat.c | 11 ++++++++++- >>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/cluster/heartbeat.c b/fs/ocfs2/cluster/heartbeat.c >>> index ea8c551..43ad79f 100644 >>> --- a/fs/ocfs2/cluster/heartbeat.c >>> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/cluster/heartbeat.c >>> @@ -570,7 +570,16 @@ static struct bio *o2hb_setup_one_bio(struct o2hb_region *reg, >>> current_page, vec_len, vec_start); >>> >>> len = bio_add_page(bio, page, vec_len, vec_start); >>> - if (len != vec_len) break; >>> + if (len != vec_len) { >>> + mlog(ML_ERROR, "Adding page[%d] to bio failed, " >>> + "page %p, len %d, vec_len %u, vec_start %u, " >>> + "bi_sector %llu\n", current_page, page, len, >>> + vec_len, vec_start, >>> + (unsigned long long)bio->bi_iter.bi_sector); >>> + bio_put(bio); >>> + bio = ERR_PTR(-EFAULT); >> >> IMO, EFAULT is not an appropriate error code here. >> If __bio_add_page returns 0, some are caused by bio checking failed. >> Also I've noticed that several other callers just use ENOMEM, so I think >> EINVAL or ENOMEM may be better. > > __bio_add_page has been deleted in patch c66a14d07c13, and I notice that > other callers always use -EFAULT or -EIO. I'm afraid we are not basing on > the same kernel source. >Oops... Yes, I was looking an old kernel... EIO sounds reasonable, but I don't know why EFAULT since it means "Bad address". Thanks, Joseph