Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 9 Jan 2019 19:39:20 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To:     Hongbo Yao <yaohongbo@huawei.com>
Cc:     wangxiongfeng2@huawei.com, guohanjun@huawei.com,
        huawei.libin@huawei.com, thunder.leizhen@huawei.com,
        tanxiaojun@huawei.com, xiexiuqi@huawei.com,
        yangyingliang@huawei.com, cj.chengjian@huawei.com,
        wxf.wang@hisilicon.com, keith.busch@intel.com, axboe@fb.com,
        hch@lst.de, sagi@grimberg.me, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nvme: fix out of bounds access in nvme_cqe_pending
Message-ID: <20190109183920.GA22070@lst.de>
References: <1546827727-49635-1-git-send-email-yaohongbo@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1546827727-49635-1-git-send-email-yaohongbo@huawei.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jan 07, 2019 at 10:22:07AM +0800, Hongbo Yao wrote:
> There is an out of bounds array access in nvme_cqe_peding().
> 
> When enable irq_thread for nvme interrupt, there is racing between the
> nvmeq->cq_head updating and reading.

Just curious: why did you enable this option?  Do you have a workload
where it matters?

> diff --git a/drivers/nvme/host/pci.c b/drivers/nvme/host/pci.c
> index d668682..68375d4 100644
> --- a/drivers/nvme/host/pci.c
> +++ b/drivers/nvme/host/pci.c
> @@ -908,9 +908,11 @@ static void nvme_complete_cqes(struct nvme_queue *nvmeq, u16 start, u16 end)
>  
>  static inline void nvme_update_cq_head(struct nvme_queue *nvmeq)
>  {
> -	if (++nvmeq->cq_head == nvmeq->q_depth) {
> +	if (nvmeq->cq_head == (nvmeq->q_depth - 1)) {
>  		nvmeq->cq_head = 0;
>  		nvmeq->cq_phase = !nvmeq->cq_phase;
> +	} else {
> +		++nvmeq->cq_head;

No need for the braces above, but otherwise this looks fine.  I'll apply
it to nvme-4.21.