Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] rq_pages bounds checking

[Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>]

On Sat, 2023-03-18 at 15:20 +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote:
> 
> > On Mar 18, 2023, at 6:04 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, 2023-03-17 at 19:01 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> > > A slightly modified take on Jeff's earlier patches, tested with
> > > both NFSv3 and NFSv4.1 via simple fault injection in
> > > svc_rqst_replace_page().
> > > 
> > > In general I'm in favor of more rq_pages bounds checking by
> > > replacing direct modification of the rq_respages and rq_next_page
> > > fields with accessor functions.
> > > 
> > > ---
> > > 
> > > Chuck Lever (2):
> > >      SUNRPC: add bounds checking to svc_rqst_replace_page
> > >      NFSD: Watch for rq_pages bounds checking errors in nfsd_splice_actor()
> > > 
> > > Jeff Layton (1):
> > >      nfsd: don't replace page in rq_pages if it's a continuation of last page
> > > 
> > > 
> > > fs/nfsd/vfs.c                 | 15 +++++++++++++--
> > > include/linux/sunrpc/svc.h    |  2 +-
> > > include/trace/events/sunrpc.h | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > net/sunrpc/svc.c              | 15 ++++++++++++++-
> > > 4 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > --
> > > Chuck Lever
> > > 
> > 
> > Looks good, Chuck, thanks. You can add this to the last two:
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
> 
> Excellent, thanks!
> 
> When I started I expected 3/3 to be more substantial, but since it's
> just a handful of lines and the patch descriptions are about the same,
> I'm going to squash 2/3 and 3/3 together.
> 
> Only question is whether to apply that to nfsd-next or nfsd-fixes.
> Since it's a defensive change, I was thinking nfsd-next. Let me know
> if you think it should get merged sooner.
> 

No, that sounds fine for those. Patch #1 needs to go in ASAP, of course.
-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>