linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] lib: introduce simple error-checking wrapper for memparse()

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <89207e33051803a21b0703987bf2a91208e8cf70.camel@yandex.ru>
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2026 14:05:41 +0300
From: Dmitry Antipov <dmantipov@...dex.ru>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
Cc: Carlos Maiolino <cem@...nel.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
  Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>, Andrew
 Morton	 <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] lib: introduce simple error-checking wrapper for
 memparse()

On Thu, 2026-01-08 at 22:10 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

> Hmm... Why not -ERANGE (IIRC this what kstrto*() returns when it doesn't match
> the given range).

Well, I've always treated -ERANGE closer to formal math, i.e. "return -ERANGE
if X is not in [A:B)", rather than using it to denote something which makes
no practical sense in some particular context, like negative amount of memory
or negative string length.

Dmitry