Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-202010-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 01:33:32 -0700
From: Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>
To: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
Cc: Sathya Prakash <sathya.prakash@broadcom.com>,
	Sreekanth Reddy <sreekanth.reddy@broadcom.com>,
	Suganath Prabu Subramani <suganath-prabu.subramani@broadcom.com>,
	"James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>, leit@meta.com,
	"open list:LSILOGIC MPT FUSION DRIVERS (FC/SAS/SPI)" <MPT-FusionLinux.pdl@broadcom.com>,
	"open list:LSILOGIC MPT FUSION DRIVERS (FC/SAS/SPI)" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
	open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mpt3sas: Avoid test/set_bit() operating in non-allocated
 memory
Message-ID: <ZmAi3DoEBuv4txOL@gmail.com>
References: <20240531180055.950704-1-leitao@debian.org>
 <Zlo81SBdvflQ_38O@kbusch-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Zlo81SBdvflQ_38O@kbusch-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>

On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 03:10:45PM -0600, Keith Busch wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 11:00:54AM -0700, Breno Leitao wrote:

> > @@ -8529,6 +8535,12 @@ mpt3sas_base_attach(struct MPT3SAS_ADAPTER *ioc)
> >  	ioc->pend_os_device_add_sz = (ioc->facts.MaxDevHandle / 8);
> >  	if (ioc->facts.MaxDevHandle % 8)
> >  		ioc->pend_os_device_add_sz++;
> > +
> > +	/* pend_os_device_add_sz should have, at least, the minimal room
> > +	 * for set_bit()/test_bit(), otherwise out-of-memory may occur
> > +	 */
> > +	ioc->pend_os_device_add_sz = ALIGN(ioc->pend_os_device_add_sz,
> > +					   sizeof(unsigned long));
> >  	ioc->pend_os_device_add = kzalloc(ioc->pend_os_device_add_sz,
> >  	    GFP_KERNEL);
> >  	if (!ioc->pend_os_device_add) {

> Do we need similiar ALIGN for _base_check_ioc_facts_changes() too?

Yes, that would help as well. Since it will protect
->device_remove_in_progress and others from the same problem.

Let me send a v2.

Thanks!