linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] unlz4: always set an error return code on failures

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]

Date:	Mon, 11 Nov 2013 22:02:27 +0900
From:	Kyungsik Lee <kyungsik.lee@....com>
To:	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>
Cc:	Matthew Daley <mattjd@...il.com>, chan.jeong@....com,
	hyojun.im@....com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] unlz4: always set an error return code on failures

On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 08:35:31AM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 11.11.13 at 03:49, Kyungsik Lee <kyungsik.lee@....com> wrote:
> > Hello Jan,
> > 
> > Thanks for the patch.
> > 
> > On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 09:27:09AM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> "ret", being set to -1 early on, gets cleared by the first invocation
> >> of lz4_decompress()/lz4_decompress_unknownoutputsize(), and hence
> >> subsequent failures wouldn't be noticed by the caller without setting
> >> it back to -1 right after those calls.
> >> 
> >> Reported-by: Matthew Daley <mattjd@...il.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>
> >> Cc: Kyungsik Lee <kyungsik.lee@....com>
> >> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> >> 
> >> --- a/lib/decompress_unlz4.c
> >> +++ b/lib/decompress_unlz4.c
> >> @@ -141,6 +141,7 @@ STATIC inline int INIT unlz4(u8 *input, 
> >>  			goto exit_2;
> >>  		}
> >>  
> >> +		ret = -1;
> >>  		if (flush && flush(outp, dest_len) != dest_len)
> >>  			goto exit_2;
> >>  		if (output)
> >>
> > What do you think of adding "ret2" for keeping "ret" error status
> > which is set by lz4_decompress*() like below.
> 
> I'd be fine with that too, but preferred to submit the smallest
> possible (read: one line) patch in this case.
>
I think it looks neat avoiding "ret" being set to error status
in the loop. Can you please resend the patch with those changes?

Acked-by: Kyungsik Lee <kyungsik.lee@....com>

Thanks,
Kyungsik
--
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/