Signed-off-by: Yevgeny Kliteynik <[email protected]>
---
opensm/osm_port_info_rcv.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
diff --git a/opensm/osm_port_info_rcv.c b/opensm/osm_port_info_rcv.c
index c3bc66c..442bc3f 100644
--- a/opensm/osm_port_info_rcv.c
+++ b/opensm/osm_port_info_rcv.c
@@ -505,6 +505,11 @@ void osm_pi_rcv_process(IN void *context, IN void *data)
CL_ASSERT(p_smp->attr_id == IB_MAD_ATTR_PORT_INFO);
+ /*
+ * Attribute modifier has already been validated upon MAD receive,
+ * which means that port_num has to be valid - it originated from
+ * the request attribute modifier.
+ */
port_num = (uint8_t) cl_ntoh32(p_smp->attr_mod);
port_guid = p_context->port_guid;
@@ -554,6 +559,17 @@ void osm_pi_rcv_process(IN void *context, IN void *data)
p_node = p_port->p_node;
CL_ASSERT(p_node);
+ if (p_pi->local_port_num > p_node->node_info.num_ports) {
+ CL_PLOCK_RELEASE(sm->p_lock);
+ OSM_LOG(sm->p_log, OSM_LOG_ERROR, "ERR 0F15: "
+ "Received PortInfo for port GUID 0x%" PRIx64 " is "
+ "non-compliant and is being ignored since the "
+ "local port num %u > num ports %u\n",
+ cl_ntoh64(port_guid), p_pi->local_port_num,
+ p_node->node_info.num_ports);
+ goto Exit;
+ }
+
/*
If we were setting the PortInfo, then receiving
this attribute was not part of sweeping the subnet.
--
1.7.11.1
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
