Re: [PATCH v5 15/17] s390/dasd: Report ESE capability and format mode at device online
[email protected] Fri, 31 Jul 2026 16:39:42 +0000
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-s390 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider: Pre-existing issues: - [High] This problem wasn't introduced by this patch, but the `BIODASDRAS` ioctl crashes the kernel on DASD devices whose discipline does not implement `.is_ese`. -- --- Patch [15]: [PATCH v5 15/17] s390/dasd: Report ESE capability and format mode at device online --- commit a8b5bcde61b1c7e9effa84a4b07196f1129e6ac3 Author: Stefan Haberland <[email protected]> s390/dasd: Report ESE capability and format mode at device online This patch extends the device information line logged when a volume comes online with the ESE hardware capability and the on-disk format mode. It derives the format mode (full or on demand) from the on-disk format label. > diff --git a/drivers/s390/block/dasd_eckd.c b/drivers/s390/block/dasd_eckd.c > index 8f7ffbeb9a6ca..a7d874e79336e 100644 > --- a/drivers/s390/block/dasd_eckd.c > +++ b/drivers/s390/block/dasd_eckd.c [ ... ] This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but while reviewing the ESE support I noticed a pre-existing issue in the BIODASDRAS ioctl handling: drivers/s390/block/dasd_ioctl.c:dasd_release_space() { if (!device->discipline->is_ese && !device->discipline->is_ese(device)) return -ENOTSUPP; if (!device->discipline->release_space) return -ENOTSUPP; [Severity: High] Can this logic cause a kernel panic if a privileged user issues the BIODASDRAS ioctl on a device whose discipline lacks the .is_ese callback? If the .is_ese function pointer is NULL, the first half of the condition evaluates to true. The && operator then proceeds to evaluate the right side, which immediately dereferences the NULL function pointer. Additionally, when the callback is present (such as on ECKD devices), does the && operator skip the capability check entirely? Since the left side evaluates to false when the pointer exists, the right side is never executed. Should this condition use || instead of && to properly check for both the existence of the callback and its return value? -- Sashiko AI review ยท https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected]?part=15