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 <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Coly Li <[email protected]>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/nvdimm/[email protected]/
Cc: Dan Williams <[email protected]>
Cc: Geliang Tang <[email protected]>
Cc: Hannes Reinecke <[email protected]>
Cc: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
Cc: NeilBrown <[email protected]>
Cc: Vishal L Verma <[email protected]>
Cc: Xiao Ni <[email protected]>
---
block/badblocks.c | 6 ++++--
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
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
--
2.35.3
> 2023年12月24日 08:28，Coly Li <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Coly Li <[email protected]>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/nvdimm/[email protected]/
> Cc: Dan Williams <[email protected]>
> Cc: Geliang Tang <[email protected]>
> Cc: Hannes Reinecke <[email protected]>
> Cc: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
> Cc: NeilBrown <[email protected]>
> Cc: Vishal L Verma <[email protected]>
> Cc: Xiao Ni <[email protected]>
> ---
> 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]
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
On 12/23/23 5:32 PM, Coly Li wrote:
>> 2023?12?24? 08:28?Coly Li <[email protected]> ???
>>
>> 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 <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Coly Li <[email protected]>
>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/nvdimm/[email protected]/
>> Cc: Dan Williams <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Geliang Tang <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Hannes Reinecke <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
>> Cc: NeilBrown <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Vishal L Verma <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Xiao Ni <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> 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.
--
Jens Axboe
> 2023年12月24日 09:38，Jens Axboe <[email protected]> 写道：
>
> On 12/23/23 5:32 PM, Coly Li wrote:
>>> 2023?12?24? 08:28?Coly Li <[email protected]> ???
>>>
>>> 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 <[email protected]>
>>> Signed-off-by: Coly Li <[email protected]>
>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/nvdimm/[email protected]/
>>> Cc: Dan Williams <[email protected]>
>>> Cc: Geliang Tang <[email protected]>
>>> Cc: Hannes Reinecke <[email protected]>
>>> Cc: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
>>> Cc: NeilBrown <[email protected]>
>>> Cc: Vishal L Verma <[email protected]>
>>> Cc: Xiao Ni <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> 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