| Message ID | 20201207093728.428679-1-kamalheib1@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [for-rc] RDMA/siw: Fix shift-out-of-bounds when call roundup_pow_of_two() | expand |
On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 11:37:28AM +0200, Kamal Heib wrote: > When running the blktests over siw the following shift-out-of-bounds is > reported, this is happening because the passed IRD or ORD from the ulp > could be zero which will lead to unexpected behavior when calling > roundup_pow_of_two(), fix that by blocking zero values of ORD or IRD. > > UBSAN: shift-out-of-bounds in ./include/linux/log2.h:57:13 > shift exponent 64 is too large for 64-bit type 'long unsigned int' > CPU: 20 PID: 3957 Comm: kworker/u64:13 Tainted: G S 5.10.0-rc6 #2 > Hardware name: Dell Inc. PowerEdge R630/02C2CP, BIOS 2.1.5 04/11/2016 > Workqueue: iw_cm_wq cm_work_handler [iw_cm] > Call Trace: > dump_stack+0x99/0xcb > ubsan_epilogue+0x5/0x40 > __ubsan_handle_shift_out_of_bounds.cold.11+0xb4/0xf3 > ? down_write+0x183/0x3d0 > siw_qp_modify.cold.8+0x2d/0x32 [siw] > ? __local_bh_enable_ip+0xa5/0xf0 > siw_accept+0x906/0x1b60 [siw] > ? xa_load+0x147/0x1f0 > ? siw_connect+0x17a0/0x17a0 [siw] > ? lock_downgrade+0x700/0x700 > ? siw_get_base_qp+0x1c2/0x340 [siw] > ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x39/0x40 > iw_cm_accept+0x1f4/0x430 [iw_cm] > rdma_accept+0x3fa/0xb10 [rdma_cm] > ? check_flush_dependency+0x410/0x410 > ? cma_rep_recv+0x570/0x570 [rdma_cm] > nvmet_rdma_queue_connect+0x1a62/0x2680 [nvmet_rdma] > ? nvmet_rdma_alloc_cmds+0xce0/0xce0 [nvmet_rdma] > ? lock_release+0x56e/0xcc0 > ? lock_downgrade+0x700/0x700 > ? lock_downgrade+0x700/0x700 > ? __xa_alloc_cyclic+0xef/0x350 > ? __xa_alloc+0x2d0/0x2d0 > ? rdma_restrack_add+0xbe/0x2c0 [ib_core] > ? __ww_mutex_die+0x190/0x190 > cma_cm_event_handler+0xf2/0x500 [rdma_cm] > iw_conn_req_handler+0x910/0xcb0 [rdma_cm] > ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x39/0x40 > ? trace_hardirqs_on+0x1c/0x150 > ? cma_ib_handler+0x8a0/0x8a0 [rdma_cm] > ? __kasan_kmalloc.constprop.7+0xc1/0xd0 > cm_work_handler+0x121c/0x17a0 [iw_cm] > ? iw_cm_reject+0x190/0x190 [iw_cm] > ? trace_hardirqs_on+0x1c/0x150 > process_one_work+0x8fb/0x16c0 > ? pwq_dec_nr_in_flight+0x320/0x320 > worker_thread+0x87/0xb40 > ? __kthread_parkme+0xd1/0x1a0 > ? process_one_work+0x16c0/0x16c0 > kthread+0x35f/0x430 > ? kthread_mod_delayed_work+0x180/0x180 > ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30 > > Fixes: 6c52fdc244b5 ("rdma/siw: connection management") > Signed-off-by: Kamal Heib <kamalheib1@gmail.com> > drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw_cm.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw_cm.c b/drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw_cm.c > index 66764f7ef072..dff0b00cc55d 100644 > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw_cm.c > @@ -1571,7 +1571,8 @@ int siw_accept(struct iw_cm_id *id, struct iw_cm_conn_param *params) > qp->tx_ctx.gso_seg_limit = 0; > } > if (params->ord > sdev->attrs.max_ord || > - params->ird > sdev->attrs.max_ird) { > + params->ird > sdev->attrs.max_ird || > + !params->ord || !params->ird) { > siw_dbg_cep( Are you sure this is the right place for this? Why not higher up? It looks like the other iwarp drivers have the same problem Jason
-----"Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote: ----- >To: "Kamal Heib" <kamalheib1@gmail.com> >From: "Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@nvidia.com> >Date: 12/07/2020 09:29PM >Cc: <linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org>, "Bernard Metzler" ><bmt@zurich.ibm.com>, "Doug Ledford" <dledford@redhat.com> >Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH for-rc] RDMA/siw: Fix >shift-out-of-bounds when call roundup_pow_of_two() > >On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 11:37:28AM +0200, Kamal Heib wrote: >> When running the blktests over siw the following >shift-out-of-bounds is >> reported, this is happening because the passed IRD or ORD from the >ulp >> could be zero which will lead to unexpected behavior when calling >> roundup_pow_of_two(), fix that by blocking zero values of ORD or >IRD. >> >> UBSAN: shift-out-of-bounds in ./include/linux/log2.h:57:13 >> shift exponent 64 is too large for 64-bit type 'long unsigned int' >> CPU: 20 PID: 3957 Comm: kworker/u64:13 Tainted: G S 5.10.0-rc6 >#2 >> Hardware name: Dell Inc. PowerEdge R630/02C2CP, BIOS 2.1.5 >04/11/2016 >> Workqueue: iw_cm_wq cm_work_handler [iw_cm] >> Call Trace: >> dump_stack+0x99/0xcb >> ubsan_epilogue+0x5/0x40 >> __ubsan_handle_shift_out_of_bounds.cold.11+0xb4/0xf3 >> ? down_write+0x183/0x3d0 >> siw_qp_modify.cold.8+0x2d/0x32 [siw] >> ? __local_bh_enable_ip+0xa5/0xf0 >> siw_accept+0x906/0x1b60 [siw] >> ? xa_load+0x147/0x1f0 >> ? siw_connect+0x17a0/0x17a0 [siw] >> ? lock_downgrade+0x700/0x700 >> ? siw_get_base_qp+0x1c2/0x340 [siw] >> ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x39/0x40 >> iw_cm_accept+0x1f4/0x430 [iw_cm] >> rdma_accept+0x3fa/0xb10 [rdma_cm] >> ? check_flush_dependency+0x410/0x410 >> ? cma_rep_recv+0x570/0x570 [rdma_cm] >> nvmet_rdma_queue_connect+0x1a62/0x2680 [nvmet_rdma] >> ? nvmet_rdma_alloc_cmds+0xce0/0xce0 [nvmet_rdma] >> ? lock_release+0x56e/0xcc0 >> ? lock_downgrade+0x700/0x700 >> ? lock_downgrade+0x700/0x700 >> ? __xa_alloc_cyclic+0xef/0x350 >> ? __xa_alloc+0x2d0/0x2d0 >> ? rdma_restrack_add+0xbe/0x2c0 [ib_core] >> ? __ww_mutex_die+0x190/0x190 >> cma_cm_event_handler+0xf2/0x500 [rdma_cm] >> iw_conn_req_handler+0x910/0xcb0 [rdma_cm] >> ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x39/0x40 >> ? trace_hardirqs_on+0x1c/0x150 >> ? cma_ib_handler+0x8a0/0x8a0 [rdma_cm] >> ? __kasan_kmalloc.constprop.7+0xc1/0xd0 >> cm_work_handler+0x121c/0x17a0 [iw_cm] >> ? iw_cm_reject+0x190/0x190 [iw_cm] >> ? trace_hardirqs_on+0x1c/0x150 >> process_one_work+0x8fb/0x16c0 >> ? pwq_dec_nr_in_flight+0x320/0x320 >> worker_thread+0x87/0xb40 >> ? __kthread_parkme+0xd1/0x1a0 >> ? process_one_work+0x16c0/0x16c0 >> kthread+0x35f/0x430 >> ? kthread_mod_delayed_work+0x180/0x180 >> ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30 >> >> Fixes: 6c52fdc244b5 ("rdma/siw: connection management") >> Signed-off-by: Kamal Heib <kamalheib1@gmail.com> >> drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw_cm.c | 3 ++- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw_cm.c >b/drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw_cm.c >> index 66764f7ef072..dff0b00cc55d 100644 >> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw_cm.c >> @@ -1571,7 +1571,8 @@ int siw_accept(struct iw_cm_id *id, struct >iw_cm_conn_param *params) >> qp->tx_ctx.gso_seg_limit = 0; >> } >> if (params->ord > sdev->attrs.max_ord || >> - params->ird > sdev->attrs.max_ird) { >> + params->ird > sdev->attrs.max_ird || >> + !params->ord || !params->ird) { >> siw_dbg_cep( > >Are you sure this is the right place for this? Why not higher up? It >looks like the other iwarp drivers have the same problem > >Jason > 1) Good question. Do we want to allow applications to zero-size rdma READ capabilities? Maybe we want, if it is recognized as a security feature? 2) In any case, siw currently does not correctly handle the case of zero sized ORD/IRD. If we want to go with 1), some fixes to siw are to be done. If we do not want 1), Kamal's patch is half of the story. It handles the response side only. Initiator would have to be fixed as well. I'd propose allowing 1). I'd fix siw accordingly. Opinions? Thanks! Bernard.
On 12/8/2020 5:46 AM, Bernard Metzler wrote: > -----"Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote: ----- > >> To: "Kamal Heib" <kamalheib1@gmail.com> >> From: "Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@nvidia.com> >> Date: 12/07/2020 09:29PM >> Cc: <linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org>, "Bernard Metzler" >> <bmt@zurich.ibm.com>, "Doug Ledford" <dledford@redhat.com> >> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH for-rc] RDMA/siw: Fix >> shift-out-of-bounds when call roundup_pow_of_two() >> >> On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 11:37:28AM +0200, Kamal Heib wrote: >>> When running the blktests over siw the following >> shift-out-of-bounds is >>> reported, this is happening because the passed IRD or ORD from the >> ulp >>> could be zero which will lead to unexpected behavior when calling >>> roundup_pow_of_two(), fix that by blocking zero values of ORD or >> IRD. >>> >>> UBSAN: shift-out-of-bounds in ./include/linux/log2.h:57:13 >>> shift exponent 64 is too large for 64-bit type 'long unsigned int' >>> CPU: 20 PID: 3957 Comm: kworker/u64:13 Tainted: G S 5.10.0-rc6 >> #2 >>> Hardware name: Dell Inc. PowerEdge R630/02C2CP, BIOS 2.1.5 >> 04/11/2016 >>> Workqueue: iw_cm_wq cm_work_handler [iw_cm] >>> Call Trace: >>> dump_stack+0x99/0xcb >>> ubsan_epilogue+0x5/0x40 >>> __ubsan_handle_shift_out_of_bounds.cold.11+0xb4/0xf3 >>> ? down_write+0x183/0x3d0 >>> siw_qp_modify.cold.8+0x2d/0x32 [siw] >>> ? __local_bh_enable_ip+0xa5/0xf0 >>> siw_accept+0x906/0x1b60 [siw] >>> ? xa_load+0x147/0x1f0 >>> ? siw_connect+0x17a0/0x17a0 [siw] >>> ? lock_downgrade+0x700/0x700 >>> ? siw_get_base_qp+0x1c2/0x340 [siw] >>> ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x39/0x40 >>> iw_cm_accept+0x1f4/0x430 [iw_cm] >>> rdma_accept+0x3fa/0xb10 [rdma_cm] >>> ? check_flush_dependency+0x410/0x410 >>> ? cma_rep_recv+0x570/0x570 [rdma_cm] >>> nvmet_rdma_queue_connect+0x1a62/0x2680 [nvmet_rdma] >>> ? nvmet_rdma_alloc_cmds+0xce0/0xce0 [nvmet_rdma] >>> ? lock_release+0x56e/0xcc0 >>> ? lock_downgrade+0x700/0x700 >>> ? lock_downgrade+0x700/0x700 >>> ? __xa_alloc_cyclic+0xef/0x350 >>> ? __xa_alloc+0x2d0/0x2d0 >>> ? rdma_restrack_add+0xbe/0x2c0 [ib_core] >>> ? __ww_mutex_die+0x190/0x190 >>> cma_cm_event_handler+0xf2/0x500 [rdma_cm] >>> iw_conn_req_handler+0x910/0xcb0 [rdma_cm] >>> ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x39/0x40 >>> ? trace_hardirqs_on+0x1c/0x150 >>> ? cma_ib_handler+0x8a0/0x8a0 [rdma_cm] >>> ? __kasan_kmalloc.constprop.7+0xc1/0xd0 >>> cm_work_handler+0x121c/0x17a0 [iw_cm] >>> ? iw_cm_reject+0x190/0x190 [iw_cm] >>> ? trace_hardirqs_on+0x1c/0x150 >>> process_one_work+0x8fb/0x16c0 >>> ? pwq_dec_nr_in_flight+0x320/0x320 >>> worker_thread+0x87/0xb40 >>> ? __kthread_parkme+0xd1/0x1a0 >>> ? process_one_work+0x16c0/0x16c0 >>> kthread+0x35f/0x430 >>> ? kthread_mod_delayed_work+0x180/0x180 >>> ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30 >>> >>> Fixes: 6c52fdc244b5 ("rdma/siw: connection management") >>> Signed-off-by: Kamal Heib <kamalheib1@gmail.com> >>> drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw_cm.c | 3 ++- >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw_cm.c >> b/drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw_cm.c >>> index 66764f7ef072..dff0b00cc55d 100644 >>> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw_cm.c >>> @@ -1571,7 +1571,8 @@ int siw_accept(struct iw_cm_id *id, struct >> iw_cm_conn_param *params) >>> qp->tx_ctx.gso_seg_limit = 0; >>> } >>> if (params->ord > sdev->attrs.max_ord || >>> - params->ird > sdev->attrs.max_ird) { >>> + params->ird > sdev->attrs.max_ird || >>> + !params->ord || !params->ird) { >>> siw_dbg_cep( >> >> Are you sure this is the right place for this? Why not higher up? It >> looks like the other iwarp drivers have the same problem >> >> Jason >> > 1) Good question. Do we want to allow applications to zero-size > rdma READ capabilities? Maybe we want, if it is recognized as a > security feature? Do you mean zero-size RDMA Read, as in, an RDMA Read of zero bytes? This is a valid operation specifically mentioned in the protocols. Although it transfers no data, it does require a region protection check at the responder, and it's something that requesting applications may issue. OTOH, if you mean is a zero IRD or ORD valid, yes, that too is true. The NFS/RDMA client actually did this, because the rpcrdma protocol permits only the server to issue RDMA operations. Therefore to reduce resources, the client would set IRD to zero, and ORD to some small number. The server would do the opposite (IRD=n and ORD=0) > 2) In any case, siw currently does not correctly handle the case > of zero sized ORD/IRD. If we want to go with 1), some fixes to siw > are to be done. If we do not want 1), Kamal's patch is half of the > story. It handles the response side only. Initiator would have to > be fixed as well. > > I'd propose allowing 1). I'd fix siw accordingly. Opinions? Definitely allow both aspects of #1, and fix #2. Tom.
-----"Tom Talpey" <tom@talpey.com> wrote: ----- >To: "Bernard Metzler" <BMT@zurich.ibm.com>, "Jason Gunthorpe" ><jgg@nvidia.com> >From: "Tom Talpey" <tom@talpey.com> >Date: 12/08/2020 04:19PM >Cc: "Kamal Heib" <kamalheib1@gmail.com>, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, >"Doug Ledford" <dledford@redhat.com> >Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH for-rc] RDMA/siw: Fix >shift-out-of-bounds when call roundup_pow_of_two() > >On 12/8/2020 5:46 AM, Bernard Metzler wrote: >> -----"Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@nvidia.com> wrote: ----- >> >>> To: "Kamal Heib" <kamalheib1@gmail.com> >>> From: "Jason Gunthorpe" <jgg@nvidia.com> >>> Date: 12/07/2020 09:29PM >>> Cc: <linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org>, "Bernard Metzler" >>> <bmt@zurich.ibm.com>, "Doug Ledford" <dledford@redhat.com> >>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH for-rc] RDMA/siw: Fix >>> shift-out-of-bounds when call roundup_pow_of_two() >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 11:37:28AM +0200, Kamal Heib wrote: >>>> When running the blktests over siw the following >>> shift-out-of-bounds is >>>> reported, this is happening because the passed IRD or ORD from >the >>> ulp >>>> could be zero which will lead to unexpected behavior when calling >>>> roundup_pow_of_two(), fix that by blocking zero values of ORD or >>> IRD. >>>> >>>> UBSAN: shift-out-of-bounds in ./include/linux/log2.h:57:13 >>>> shift exponent 64 is too large for 64-bit type 'long unsigned >int' >>>> CPU: 20 PID: 3957 Comm: kworker/u64:13 Tainted: G S >5.10.0-rc6 >>> #2 >>>> Hardware name: Dell Inc. PowerEdge R630/02C2CP, BIOS 2.1.5 >>> 04/11/2016 >>>> Workqueue: iw_cm_wq cm_work_handler [iw_cm] >>>> Call Trace: >>>> dump_stack+0x99/0xcb >>>> ubsan_epilogue+0x5/0x40 >>>> __ubsan_handle_shift_out_of_bounds.cold.11+0xb4/0xf3 >>>> ? down_write+0x183/0x3d0 >>>> siw_qp_modify.cold.8+0x2d/0x32 [siw] >>>> ? __local_bh_enable_ip+0xa5/0xf0 >>>> siw_accept+0x906/0x1b60 [siw] >>>> ? xa_load+0x147/0x1f0 >>>> ? siw_connect+0x17a0/0x17a0 [siw] >>>> ? lock_downgrade+0x700/0x700 >>>> ? siw_get_base_qp+0x1c2/0x340 [siw] >>>> ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x39/0x40 >>>> iw_cm_accept+0x1f4/0x430 [iw_cm] >>>> rdma_accept+0x3fa/0xb10 [rdma_cm] >>>> ? check_flush_dependency+0x410/0x410 >>>> ? cma_rep_recv+0x570/0x570 [rdma_cm] >>>> nvmet_rdma_queue_connect+0x1a62/0x2680 [nvmet_rdma] >>>> ? nvmet_rdma_alloc_cmds+0xce0/0xce0 [nvmet_rdma] >>>> ? lock_release+0x56e/0xcc0 >>>> ? lock_downgrade+0x700/0x700 >>>> ? lock_downgrade+0x700/0x700 >>>> ? __xa_alloc_cyclic+0xef/0x350 >>>> ? __xa_alloc+0x2d0/0x2d0 >>>> ? rdma_restrack_add+0xbe/0x2c0 [ib_core] >>>> ? __ww_mutex_die+0x190/0x190 >>>> cma_cm_event_handler+0xf2/0x500 [rdma_cm] >>>> iw_conn_req_handler+0x910/0xcb0 [rdma_cm] >>>> ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x39/0x40 >>>> ? trace_hardirqs_on+0x1c/0x150 >>>> ? cma_ib_handler+0x8a0/0x8a0 [rdma_cm] >>>> ? __kasan_kmalloc.constprop.7+0xc1/0xd0 >>>> cm_work_handler+0x121c/0x17a0 [iw_cm] >>>> ? iw_cm_reject+0x190/0x190 [iw_cm] >>>> ? trace_hardirqs_on+0x1c/0x150 >>>> process_one_work+0x8fb/0x16c0 >>>> ? pwq_dec_nr_in_flight+0x320/0x320 >>>> worker_thread+0x87/0xb40 >>>> ? __kthread_parkme+0xd1/0x1a0 >>>> ? process_one_work+0x16c0/0x16c0 >>>> kthread+0x35f/0x430 >>>> ? kthread_mod_delayed_work+0x180/0x180 >>>> ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30 >>>> >>>> Fixes: 6c52fdc244b5 ("rdma/siw: connection management") >>>> Signed-off-by: Kamal Heib <kamalheib1@gmail.com> >>>> drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw_cm.c | 3 ++- >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw_cm.c >>> b/drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw_cm.c >>>> index 66764f7ef072..dff0b00cc55d 100644 >>>> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw_cm.c >>>> @@ -1571,7 +1571,8 @@ int siw_accept(struct iw_cm_id *id, struct >>> iw_cm_conn_param *params) >>>> qp->tx_ctx.gso_seg_limit = 0; >>>> } >>>> if (params->ord > sdev->attrs.max_ord || >>>> - params->ird > sdev->attrs.max_ird) { >>>> + params->ird > sdev->attrs.max_ird || >>>> + !params->ord || !params->ird) { >>>> siw_dbg_cep( >>> >>> Are you sure this is the right place for this? Why not higher up? >It >>> looks like the other iwarp drivers have the same problem >>> >>> Jason >>> >> 1) Good question. Do we want to allow applications to zero-size >> rdma READ capabilities? Maybe we want, if it is recognized as a >> security feature? > >Do you mean zero-size RDMA Read, as in, an RDMA Read of zero bytes? >This is a valid operation specifically mentioned in the protocols. > >Although it transfers no data, it does require a region protection >check at the responder, and it's something that requesting >applications >may issue. > >OTOH, if you mean is a zero IRD or ORD valid, yes, that too is true. > Yes, that's what I meant. I think so too, this should be allowed. One side might for example want to forbid the peer to send READ requests, since it does not want to expose any buffer for remote reading, so it want to set IRD to zero. I don't know what other providers are doing, but let me fix that for siw. >The NFS/RDMA client actually did this, because the rpcrdma protocol >permits only the server to issue RDMA operations. Therefore to reduce >resources, the client would set IRD to zero, and ORD to some small >number. The server would do the opposite (IRD=n and ORD=0) > >> 2) In any case, siw currently does not correctly handle the case >> of zero sized ORD/IRD. If we want to go with 1), some fixes to siw >> are to be done. If we do not want 1), Kamal's patch is half of the >> story. It handles the response side only. Initiator would have to >> be fixed as well. >> >> I'd propose allowing 1). I'd fix siw accordingly. Opinions? > >Definitely allow both aspects of #1, and fix #2. > >Tom. >
diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw_cm.c b/drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw_cm.c index 66764f7ef072..dff0b00cc55d 100644 --- a/drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw_cm.c +++ b/drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw_cm.c @@ -1571,7 +1571,8 @@ int siw_accept(struct iw_cm_id *id, struct iw_cm_conn_param *params) qp->tx_ctx.gso_seg_limit = 0; } if (params->ord > sdev->attrs.max_ord || - params->ird > sdev->attrs.max_ird) { + params->ird > sdev->attrs.max_ird || + !params->ord || !params->ird) { siw_dbg_cep( cep, "[QP %u]: ord %d (max %d), ird %d (max %d)\n",
When running the blktests over siw the following shift-out-of-bounds is reported, this is happening because the passed IRD or ORD from the ulp could be zero which will lead to unexpected behavior when calling roundup_pow_of_two(), fix that by blocking zero values of ORD or IRD. UBSAN: shift-out-of-bounds in ./include/linux/log2.h:57:13 shift exponent 64 is too large for 64-bit type 'long unsigned int' CPU: 20 PID: 3957 Comm: kworker/u64:13 Tainted: G S 5.10.0-rc6 #2 Hardware name: Dell Inc. PowerEdge R630/02C2CP, BIOS 2.1.5 04/11/2016 Workqueue: iw_cm_wq cm_work_handler [iw_cm] Call Trace: dump_stack+0x99/0xcb ubsan_epilogue+0x5/0x40 __ubsan_handle_shift_out_of_bounds.cold.11+0xb4/0xf3 ? down_write+0x183/0x3d0 siw_qp_modify.cold.8+0x2d/0x32 [siw] ? __local_bh_enable_ip+0xa5/0xf0 siw_accept+0x906/0x1b60 [siw] ? xa_load+0x147/0x1f0 ? siw_connect+0x17a0/0x17a0 [siw] ? lock_downgrade+0x700/0x700 ? siw_get_base_qp+0x1c2/0x340 [siw] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x39/0x40 iw_cm_accept+0x1f4/0x430 [iw_cm] rdma_accept+0x3fa/0xb10 [rdma_cm] ? check_flush_dependency+0x410/0x410 ? cma_rep_recv+0x570/0x570 [rdma_cm] nvmet_rdma_queue_connect+0x1a62/0x2680 [nvmet_rdma] ? nvmet_rdma_alloc_cmds+0xce0/0xce0 [nvmet_rdma] ? lock_release+0x56e/0xcc0 ? lock_downgrade+0x700/0x700 ? lock_downgrade+0x700/0x700 ? __xa_alloc_cyclic+0xef/0x350 ? __xa_alloc+0x2d0/0x2d0 ? rdma_restrack_add+0xbe/0x2c0 [ib_core] ? __ww_mutex_die+0x190/0x190 cma_cm_event_handler+0xf2/0x500 [rdma_cm] iw_conn_req_handler+0x910/0xcb0 [rdma_cm] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x39/0x40 ? trace_hardirqs_on+0x1c/0x150 ? cma_ib_handler+0x8a0/0x8a0 [rdma_cm] ? __kasan_kmalloc.constprop.7+0xc1/0xd0 cm_work_handler+0x121c/0x17a0 [iw_cm] ? iw_cm_reject+0x190/0x190 [iw_cm] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0x1c/0x150 process_one_work+0x8fb/0x16c0 ? pwq_dec_nr_in_flight+0x320/0x320 worker_thread+0x87/0xb40 ? __kthread_parkme+0xd1/0x1a0 ? process_one_work+0x16c0/0x16c0 kthread+0x35f/0x430 ? kthread_mod_delayed_work+0x180/0x180 ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30 Fixes: 6c52fdc244b5 ("rdma/siw: connection management") Signed-off-by: Kamal Heib <kamalheib1@gmail.com> --- drivers/infiniband/sw/siw/siw_cm.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)