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: <aWD5yuK1fS5JTEol@nidhogg.toxiclabs.cc>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2026 13:53:05 +0100
From: Carlos Maiolino <cem@...nel.org>
To: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 
	Dmitry Antipov <dmantipov@...dex.ru>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, 
	Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.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, Jan 08, 2026 at 09:55:27AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2026 at 09:42:42AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 09:06:49 -0800 Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, Jan 08, 2026 at 07:52:15PM +0300, Dmitry Antipov wrote:
> > > > Introduce 'memvalue()' which uses 'memparse()' to parse a string
> > > > with optional memory suffix into a non-negative number. If parsing
> > > > has succeeded, returns 0 and stores the result at the location
> > > > specified by the second argument. Otherwise returns -EINVAL and
> > > > leaves the location untouched.
> > > > 
> > > > Suggested-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
> > > > Suggested-by: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Antipov <dmantipov@...dex.ru>
> > > 
> > > LGTM, thanks!
> > > 
> > > Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>
> > 
> > Thanks, I'll add both these to mm.git's mm-nonmm-unstable branch for
> > testing.
> > 
> > If XFS people would prefer to take [2/2] via the xfs tree then please
> > lmk and I'll send it over when [1/2] is upstreamed.  Or we can take
> > both patches via the xfs tree.  Or something.  Sending out an acked-by:
> > would be simplest!
> 
> I assumed this would go via xfs tree, but I'm happy to do whatever.

Particularly I find it much simpler to have those inter-dependent
patches to go through in a single series via a single tree, instead of
breaking them apart and create merge dependencies.

As long as xfs list is in the loop I particularly don't mind. Thanks for
pulling it Andrew.

Carlos

> 
> -- 
> Kees Cook
>