[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101202150045.GA32168@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 10:00:45 -0500
From: Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>,
Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...radead.org>,
David Härdeman <david@...deman.nu>,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] media: rc: ir-lirc-codec: fix potential integer overflow
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 07:51:26AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 08:06:35PM +0300, Vasiliy Kulikov wrote:
> > count = n / sizeof(int);
> > - if (count > LIRCBUF_SIZE || count % 2 == 0)
> > + if (count > LIRCBUF_SIZE || count % 2 == 0 || n % sizeof(int) != 0)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Wait, what? We just checked this a couple lines before.
Bah. I'd only looked at the diff, which didn't have enough context. I
thought that looked familiar. Indeed, this part seems to be unnecessary.
> The rest of the patch is right and a clever catch. It would affect
> x86_64 systems and not i386. This doesn't have security implications
> does it? You'd just catch the kmalloc() stack trace for insanely large
> allocations.
Even on x86_64, it looks to my (relatively untrained) eye like you'd
actually be fine. n is a size_t (so, 64-bit on x86_64). count is an int
(so 32-bit on x86_64). We initialize count to some 64-bit value / 4, so
at most, 16 bits, which always fits just fine in the 32-bit int, no?
--
Jarod Wilson
jarod@...hat.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists