Re: [PATCH v2] ata: libata-scsi: limit sim ulated SCSI command copy to response length
Niklas Cassel <[email protected]> Thu, 09 Jul 2026 15:11:16 +0200
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-ide,dev.linux.lists.sashiko-reviews |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 9 July 2026 05:34:14 CEST, Karuna Ramkumar <[email protected]> wrote: >On Mon, Jul 6, 2026 at 6:10 PM Damien Le Moal <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 7/7/26 08:10, Karuna Ramkumar wrote: >> > Before I start working on this, I would love to hear your feedback on: >> > 1. Whether you think this API update (passing `rbuf_len` down to all >> > actors and helper functions) is the right approach, or if you prefer >> > simpler, and more localized checks elsewhere. >> >> I do not think it is necessary at all because rbuf is statically declared: >> >> static u8 ata_scsi_rbuf[ATA_SCSI_RBUF_SIZE]; >> >> So the buffer address and maximum size is known to all functions using it. >> >> > 2. What would be the best way to test all these simulated command >> > paths to ensure the fix is verified appropriately? >> >> Most functions for emulated commands generate only a very small amount of data, >> far below ATA_SCSI_RBUF_SIZE. So I would suggest that we simply add checks to >> the functions which may potentially exceed that. Off the top of my head, I do >> not know if we have any, but we should just check. >> >> Note that ideally, we should have each function allocate their own local buffer >> to handle the translation. But this is right now a little hard to do because >> these translation/emulation functions are called with the port locked, so we >> would have a memory allocation for a potentially large-ish buffer under a spin >> lock, which means no reclaim/no wait allocation, and thus potential for failure >> which we do not have right now. A proper/ideal fix would need to drop >> ata_scsi_rbuf, have some helpers for managing the internal buffer and redesign >> the submission path to not have the port locked until the translation is >> actually generated. That is all more work and more changes. >> >> So as a first step, let's check the emulation function if any of them can exceed >> ATA_SCSI_RBUF_SIZE in size, fail them with internal target failure. > >Hi Damien, > >I went through all the SCSI actor functions in libata-scsi.c and >calculated their maximum size consumption. > >As you mentioned, most command emulations triggered via actor >callbacks write a fixed or small amount of payload, and are well >within the 2048 byte limit of `ata_scsi_rbuf`. > >There are two functions that can potentially overflow though: > >1. ata_scsiop_inq_b9: Writes 64 + nr_cpr * 32 bytes. If nr_cpr crosses >62, then this can cause an overflow >2. ata_format_dsm_trim_descr: Writes trmax * 8 bytes. If trmax > 2048 >/ 8, then this can cause an overflow too. > Please note that ata_format_dsm_trim_descr() was changed recently, on libata for-7.3 branch: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/libata/linux.git/log/?h=for-7.3 I don't think that this function can overflow anymore. Kind regards, Niklas