From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mout01.posteo.de (mout01.posteo.de [185.67.36.65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F16029E0E5 for ; Sat, 23 May 2026 08:17:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.67.36.65 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1779524263; cv=none; b=UcbEwCBgCzx7qHvBXkWjEaunhPBcgHw9IAV8BDvWjehExudzWyXgyNi25694WFbndAwjSBLDtmcZbDAr93bIbJ/4F/8jPdwi58ZdB4TbZaMf7yzSG0KqKFAAvX36F6gDeXdbO8iG6sQcz04SRZOV9SccUljRdXcebg3XA5Jns1o= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1779524263; c=relaxed/simple; bh=fmP13MlWBK1/ZTpHq7F0gV9Sn5nvLCaieB3p771ZSZE=; h=MIME-Version:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Message-ID:Content-Type; b=P0kpdG18FVuDJLj/G5Cdz+yXIG637NRalWbKklmQn9V54jIVpih6yhi5O7bqU8l1XCC+Tdu70YZNTdiRQMFcQdEr5NMKy8qxoYCq6qHEP1qh8uXgj0pt47R77Q3Qmrx9lRNDOxRSmYreGOwyhQM7ynUwosowsKbZNbk2rIDAOGo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=posteo.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=posteo.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=posteo.net header.i=@posteo.net header.b=X7g+vTAD; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.67.36.65 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=posteo.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=posteo.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=posteo.net header.i=@posteo.net header.b="X7g+vTAD" Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C122240028 for ; Sat, 23 May 2026 10:17:39 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1779524259; bh=BQ3xYNiFPi/ClO+/W6owXrAqBG2q4JnIlxaYYY94LsI=; h=MIME-Version:Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:From; b=X7g+vTADRoNT7vL0XQt8x2t/6Uq/3N9R9LvXpQmUBg1F58+mMq+NpYIrZRaSV6CDN TttzDxq4LKnvtgOqhqOImTIwVNcYU8botaU2RKvHWL/Qo7i2uT2X/3JFfPC+gIvLyN iZzlhtD/LKW2gQfOOyNAkUvxf+BD7SKuR86lBzrzthXCOxjZtgoUMwgkK9JQX7mRIU Lj7Gmvn09cVdgw0pSNgg8iEPnZQyaSI6b7A9acDneC6hRmOdefjmGmVd8bJzAlmtkI tYDsdephrnx76g0ceen+FsrpkAd/ZO4pYJX/LwlvUyLBtnXAXueVM0sTamZ1SRDwib lRwQGy40jF76Q== Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4gMw4L2DV3z6tvx; Sat, 23 May 2026 10:17:38 +0200 (CEST) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 23 May 2026 08:17:38 +0000 From: mateusz.nowicki@posteo.net To: Caleb Sander Mateos Cc: Keith Busch , Jens Axboe , Christoph Hellwig , Sagi Grimberg , linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] nvme-pci: fix out-of-bounds access in =?UTF-8?Q?nvme=5Fsetup=5Fdescriptor=5Fpools?= In-Reply-To: References: <20260522150628.399288-1-mateusz.nowicki@posteo.net> Message-ID: <8a73dd99b8280c5d1bde9c6caed8323b@posteo.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 22.05.2026 17:27, Caleb Sander Mateos wrote: > FYI there was a previous report and patch for this issue: > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nvme/20260309062840.2937858-2-iam@sung-woo.kim/T/#u > . Looks like a v2 was promised but never arrived. Some attribution > (Reported-by, Link?) for the original patch might be good. > Thanks, missed that thread. Added in v2: Reported-by: Sung-woo Kim Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260309062840.2937858-2-iam@sung-woo.kim Also added a Fixes: tag for d977506f8863 > I did like that the other patch switched the type of struct > blk_mq_hw_ctx's numa_node field and the argument to struct > blk_mq_ops's init_request function pointer from unsigned int to int to > clarify that it was optional. But probably makes sense to do that as a > follow-on commit separate from the bug fix. > I can take care of it, will send it as separate follow-up. > Is numa_node >= nr_node_ids possible? I think just numa_node < 0 > should be fine, and would avoid a compiler warning about comparing int > to unsigned int. > Right, dropped the nr_node_ids check. Went with == NUMA_NO_NODE rather than < 0 to match the style in block/blk-mq.c v2 incoming. Thanks, Mateusz