On 03/07/2018 11:27, Dima Stepanov wrote: > On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 02:21:41PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> On 02/07/2018 10:52, Dima Stepanov wrote: >>> Ping. >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 12:11:44PM +0300, Dima Stepanov wrote: >>>> The prh_co_entry() routine handles requests. The first part is to read a >>>> request by calling the prh_read_request() routine, if: >>>> 1. scsi_cdb_xfer(req->cdb) call returns 0, and >>>> 2. req->cdb[0] == PERSISTENT_RESERVE_IN, then >>>> The resp->result field will be uninitialized. As a result the resp.sz >>>> field will be also uninitialized in the prh_co_entry() function. >>>> The second part is to send the response by calling the >>>> prh_write_response() routine: >>>> 1. For the PERSISTENT_RESERVE_IN command, and >>>> 2. resp->result == GOOD (previous successful reply or just luck), then >>>> There is a probability that the following assert will not be trigered: >>>> assert(resp->sz <= req->sz && resp->sz <= sizeof(client->data)); >>>> As a result some uninitialized response will be sent. >>>> >>>> The fix is to initialize the response structure to CHECK_CONDITION and 0 >>>> values before calling the prh_read_request() routine. >> >> The actual bug is that the "if (sz > 0)" should apply only to >> PERSISTENT_RESERVE_OUT, and in fact it can be done in do_pr_out. >> PERSISTENT_RESERVE_IN with sz == 0 is weird but okay. >> >> This simplifies the code a bit too, because we can handle closing the >> file descriptor in prh_co_entry. >> >> Does something like this work for you? > > Thanks for the feedback. Yes, this will work for me. Should i update the > patch and resend it or you will just pick the version you suggested?
I will pick it, thanks! Paolo