linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] lib.c: skip --param parameters

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: <1404118612.5102.4.camel@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:	Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:56:52 +0300
From:	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Christopher Li <sparse@...isli.org>
Cc:	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux-Sparse <linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] lib.c: skip --param parameters

On Mon, 2014-06-30 at 01:51 -0700, Christopher Li wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 1:32 AM, Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hmm... I'd just added test printf to the handle_param() and see if I
> > print *next, it is either --param or --param=*. So, using return (next +
> > 2) helps, otherwise we end up with the same situation as before patch.
> 
> The return value from handle_switch() is a bit tricky. It is actually points to
> the current args which about to be expired.
> 
> Take a look at this code which invoke the handle_switch().
>     for (;;) {
>         char *arg = *++args;      <---------------- notice the ++
> before the fetch
>         if (!arg)
>             break;
> 
>         if (arg[0] == '-' && arg[1]) {
>             args = handle_switch(arg+1, args); <-------- args return here.
>             continue;
>         }
>         add_ptr_list_notag(filelist, arg);
>     }
> 
> >
> > What did I miss?
> 
> So the caller loop will perform 1 pointer advance before fetch.
> Your code can advance 2 pointer, so that is  total 3 pointer advance.

Yeah, thanks for explanation. Just noticed this after send a message.

> 
> >
> > Which was explicitly mentioned in the commit message.
> 
> Sorry about that, I jump to the code first. I later notice that  in
> the commit message as well.
> 
> Any way, the change I push should fix all that.

Yup. Thank you.


-- 
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
Intel Finland Oy

--
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/