[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131211080504.GT10323@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 08:05:04 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Marek Lindner <mareklindner@...mailbox.ch>,
Simon Wunderlich <sw@...onwunderlich.de>,
Antonio Quartulli <antonio@...hcoding.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
b.a.t.m.a.n@...ts.open-mesh.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 2/3] batman-adv: Use seq_overflow
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 07:55:26AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> This sucker should return 0. Insufficiently large buffer will be handled
> by caller, TYVM, if you give that caller a chance to do so. Returning 1
> from ->show() is a bug in almost all cases, and definitely so in this one.
>
> Just in case somebody decides that above is worth copying: It Is Not.
> Original code is buggy, plain and simple. This one trades the older
> bug ("fail with -EINVAL whenever the buffer is too small") with just as buggy
> "silently skip an entry entirely whenever the buffer is too small".
>
> Don't Do That.
Pardon - Joe has made seq_overflow return -1 instead of true. Correction
to the above, then - s/This trades.*\./This is just as buggy./
Conclusion is still the same - Don't Do That. Returning -1 on insufficiently
large buffer is a bug, plain and simple.
And this patch series is completely misguided - it doesn't fix any bugs
*and* it provides a misleading example for everyone. See the reaction
right in this thread, proposing to spread the same bug to currently
working iterators.
--
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