Re: PING^7 (was Re: [PATCH v2 00/14] Corrections and customization of the SG_IO command whitelist (CVE-2012-4542))

2013-05-25 Thread Paolo Bonzini
Il 25/05/2013 07:27, Christoph Hellwig ha scritto: > On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 09:35:02PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: >> I'll go along with this. I'm also wondering what the problem would be >> if we just allowed all commands on either CAP_SYS_RAWIO or opening the >> device for write, so we just d

Re: PING^7 (was Re: [PATCH v2 00/14] Corrections and customization of the SG_IO command whitelist (CVE-2012-4542))

2013-05-25 Thread Christoph Hellwig
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 09:05:25AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > you could send destructive commands to a partition. The right fix > > for that would be to not allow SG_IO on partitions at all, just > > wondering if anything would be broken by this. > > Linus wanted to keep that for CAP_SYS_RAW

Re: PING^7 (was Re: [PATCH v2 00/14] Corrections and customization of the SG_IO command whitelist (CVE-2012-4542))

2013-05-25 Thread Paolo Bonzini
Il 25/05/2013 09:11, Christoph Hellwig ha scritto: > > Linus wanted to keep that for CAP_SYS_RAWIO. We found two uses of SG_IO > > on partitions: zfs-fuse used SYNCHRONIZE CACHE; some proprietary driver > > used TEST UNIT READY. > > > > Really, the solution is to make the bitmaps configurable in

Re: PING^7 (was Re: [PATCH v2 00/14] Corrections and customization of the SG_IO command whitelist (CVE-2012-4542))

2013-05-25 Thread Tejun Heo
Hey, James. On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 09:35:02PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > > Well, I'd actually much prefer disabling CDB whitelisting for all !MMC > > devices if at all possible. > > I'll go along with this. I'm also wondering what the problem would be Don't think we can. It'd be a behavi

Re: [PATCH 4/4] scsi_transport_fc: FC timeout handler

2013-05-25 Thread Hannes Reinecke
On 05/25/2013 07:08 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: This looks like a good start, but why would we make this FC specific? Because James B. said so :-) No, seriously: You would need to revisit the good old SCSI parallel LLDDs to figure out if this approach works for them. Eg aic7xxx basically has

Re: [PATCH 4/4] scsi_transport_fc: FC timeout handler

2013-05-25 Thread Christoph Hellwig
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 11:38:55AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > On 05/25/2013 07:08 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > >This looks like a good start, but why would we make this FC specific? > > > Because James B. said so :-) I can't remember that at all, but I'll happily let him speak. > No, serio

Re: Question: eh_abort_handler() and terminate commands

2013-05-25 Thread Hannes Reinecke
On 05/25/2013 12:26 AM, Jeremy Linton wrote: On 5/24/2013 5:57 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote: Which leads to the interesting question: What happens with the actual command once eh_abort_handler returns? Well, eventually it ends up on the done_q and gets returned up the stack via flush_don

Re: [PATCH 1/4] scsi: move initialization of scmd->eh_entry

2013-05-25 Thread Christoph Hellwig
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:57:40PM -0400, J??rn Engel wrote: > > memset(cmd->sense_buffer, 0, SCSI_SENSE_BUFFERSIZE); > > if (cmd->cmd_len == 0) > > cmd->cmd_len = scsi_command_size(cmd->cmnd); > > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cmd->eh_entry); > > + cmd->eh_eflags = 0; > > I always sus

Re: [PATCH 4/4] scsi_transport_fc: FC timeout handler

2013-05-25 Thread Hannes Reinecke
On 05/25/2013 10:42 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 11:38:55AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: On 05/25/2013 07:08 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: This looks like a good start, but why would we make this FC specific? Because James B. said so :-) I can't remember that at all,

Re: PING^7 (was Re: [PATCH v2 00/14] Corrections and customization of the SG_IO command whitelist (CVE-2012-4542))

2013-05-25 Thread Paolo Bonzini
Il 25/05/2013 10:37, Tejun Heo ha scritto: > Hey, James. > > On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 09:35:02PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: >>> Well, I'd actually much prefer disabling CDB whitelisting for all !MMC >>> devices if at all possible. >> >> I'll go along with this. I'm also wondering what the probl

Re: PING^7 (was Re: [PATCH v2 00/14] Corrections and customization of the SG_IO command whitelist (CVE-2012-4542))

2013-05-25 Thread Tejun Heo
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 01:14:37PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > Don't think we can. It'd be a behavior change clearly visible to > > userland at this point. > > We can (and even for MMC) if it is a build-time configuration knob. It > would satisfy those people who want the CVE fixed, as long

Re: PING^7 (was Re: [PATCH v2 00/14] Corrections and customization of the SG_IO command whitelist (CVE-2012-4542))

2013-05-25 Thread Paolo Bonzini
Il 25/05/2013 14:48, Tejun Heo ha scritto: >>> * Merge the patch to give out SG_IO access along with write access, so >>> > > the use cases which want to give out SG_IO access can do so >>> > > explicitly and be fully responsible for the device. This makes >>> > > sense to me. If one wants

[PATCH v3, part1 03/10] PCI: Convert alloc_pci_dev(void) to pci_alloc_dev(bus) instead

2013-05-25 Thread Jiang Liu
From: Gu Zheng Use the new pci_alloc_dev(bus) to replace the existing using of alloc_pci_dev(void). v2: Follow Bjorn's correction to move pci_bus_put() to pci_release_dev() instead. v3: release reference to bus on error recovery path Signed-off-by: Gu Zheng Signed-off-by: Jiang Liu Cc:

Re: SCSI error handling -- one error blocks the whole SCSI host

2013-05-25 Thread James Smart
Roland, I agree, and am already working around that limitation. -- james s On 5/23/2013 2:14 PM, Roland Dreier wrote: At LSF this year, we had a discussion about error handling and in particular the problem that SCSI midlayer error handling waits for the entire SCSI host (HBA) to quiesce befo