linux-kernel - Re: [patch] gru: fix a sanity test in gru_set_context

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20130520180635.GQ1360@mwanda>
Date:	Mon, 20 May 2013 21:06:35 +0300
From:	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:	Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com>
Cc:	Robin Holt <holt@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] gru: fix a sanity test in gru_set_context_option()

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 08:46:21AM -0500, Dimitri Sivanich wrote:
> On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 09:30:41PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 09:44:42AM -0500, Dimitri Sivanich wrote:
> > > 
> > > Since we're here, maybe we should neaten this up a little?
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/misc/sgi-gru/grufault.c |    5 +++--
> > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > Index: linux/drivers/misc/sgi-gru/grufault.c
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- linux.orig/drivers/misc/sgi-gru/grufault.c
> > > +++ linux/drivers/misc/sgi-gru/grufault.c
> > > @@ -876,8 +876,9 @@ int gru_set_context_option(unsigned long
> > >  	switch (req.op) {
> > >  	case sco_blade_chiplet:
> > >  		/* Select blade/chiplet for GRU context */
> > > -		if (req.val1 < -1 || req.val1 >= GRU_MAX_BLADES || !gru_base[req.val1] ||
> > > -		    req.val0 < -1 || req.val0 >= GRU_CHIPLETS_PER_HUB) {
> > > +		if (req.val0 < -1 || req.val0 >= GRU_CHIPLETS_PER_HUB ||
> > > +			req.val1 < -1 || req.val1 >= GRU_MAX_BLADES ||
> > > +			(req.val1 >= 0 && !gru_base[req.val1])) {
> > >  			ret = -EINVAL;
> > 
> > I generally prefer how in the original code all the sub conditions
> > were aligned nicely but I will Ack your version as well.  Thanks.
> > 
> 
> I guess I'd have to agree.  How about this?

Looks nice.  Starting with zero is obviously better than the
original.

Acked-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>

regards,
dan carpenter


--
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/