From: Tony Battersby <tonyb@cybernetics.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linux SCSI List <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] SCSI fixes for 4.18-rc3
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 09:56:21 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <16922cb7-757e-dc25-bc5a-ee6e48538b13@cybernetics.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180711064542.GA7377@infradead.org>
On 07/11/2018 02:45 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 05:53:18PM -0400, Tony Battersby wrote:
>> At my job (https://www.cybernetics.com/), I use the write()/read()
>> interface to the SCSI generic driver for access to tape drives and tape
>> medium changers. For example, the write()/read() interface is useful
>> for implementing RAID-like functionality for tape drives since a single
>> thread can send commands to multiple tape drives at once and poll() for
>> command completion. We have a lot of code invested in this interface,
>> so it would be a huge pain for us if it were removed. But in our case,
>> everything runs as root (as the firmware of an embedded storage
>> appliance), so extra permission checks should be OK.
> Do you just use read/write on /dev/sg or also on /dev/bsg? Because
> I started a discussion to kill the read/write support for the latter
> even before Linus brought it up here.. (and we have the same fix
> pending for /dev/bsg)
>
The read/write interface on /dev/bsg is impossible to use safely because
the list of completed commands is per-device (bd->done_list) rather than
per-fd like it is with /dev/sg. So if program A and program B are both
using the write/read interface on the same bsg device, then their
command responses will get mixed up, and program A will read() some
command results from program B and vice versa. So no, I don't use
read/write on /dev/bsg. From a security standpoint, it should
definitely be fixed or removed.
Another issue with the read/write interface of /dev/bsg was this:
[PATCH] [SCSI] bsg: fix unkillable I/O wait deadlock with scsi-mq
https://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=142367231311098&w=2
My similar patch to sg.c was accepted as commit 7568615c1054 ("sg: fix
unkillable I/O wait deadlock with scsi-mq"), but my bsg patch was never
applied. I do not know if the problem still exists in the current
kernel or if some other change to scsi-mq has fixed it. I do have a
forward-port of the patch to 4.16, but it no longer applies to 4.17.
---
A while ago there was a commit that broke the read/write interface of
/dev/sg (but not SG_IO), and some other people complained in the
following bugzilla entry, indicating that there are other users also:
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=198081
The commit that broke it was:
109bade9c625 ("scsi: sg: use standard lists for sg_requests")
The commit that fixed it was:
48ae8484e9fc ("scsi: sg: don't return bogus Sg_requests")
(sg_get_rq_mark() is called only from sg_read(), so if the patch fixed
the problem that people were complaining about in bugzilla, then that
indicates that they are using the read/write interface also)
See my explanation here:
https://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=152227354106242
(basically, the commit that broke it got backported to -stable, but the
fix didn't, so various -stable kernels were broken for a while, and
people complained)
Tony Battersby
Cybernetics
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-07-11 14:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-07-06 21:38 James Bottomley
2018-07-07 2:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-07 2:39 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-07 2:48 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-07 5:22 ` James Bottomley
2018-07-10 0:41 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-10 17:36 ` Jann Horn
[not found] ` <CA+55aFx9iTm2rZqL1jo_mhAp7EQ8tHhU6MFCSG7XdqAxY_vUGw@mail.gmail.com>
2018-07-10 18:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-10 21:53 ` Tony Battersby
2018-07-10 22:24 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-11 0:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-07-11 6:45 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-07-11 13:56 ` Tony Battersby [this message]
2018-07-16 16:20 ` Jann Horn
2018-07-07 3:08 ` Jann Horn
2018-07-07 3:25 ` Linus Torvalds
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=16922cb7-757e-dc25-bc5a-ee6e48538b13@cybernetics.com \
--to=tonyb@cybernetics.com \
--cc=James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®