linux-kernel - RE: [HPDD-discuss] [PATCH] staging: lustre: lustre: obdclass: lprocfs_status.c: Fix for possible null pointer dereference

Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Message-ID: <DB0C8A206669AC40B1C4E52A8584A6F61499F749@CFWEX01.americas.cray.com>
Date:	Tue, 16 Dec 2014 03:08:23 +0000
From:	Patrick Farrell <paf@...y.com>
To:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
	Rickard Strandqvist <rickard_strandqvist@...ctrumdigital.se>
CC:	"devel@...verdev.osuosl.org" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
	"Fabian Frederick" <fabf@...net.be>,
	Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@...6.fr>,
	"James Simmons" <uja.ornl@...il.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Greg Donald <gdonald@...il.com>,
	"HPDD-discuss@...ts.01.org" <HPDD-discuss@...ts.01.org>,
	Andriy Skulysh <Andriy_Skulysh@...atex.com>
Subject: RE: [HPDD-discuss] [PATCH] staging: lustre: lustre: obdclass:
 lprocfs_status.c: Fix for possible null pointer dereference

Strongly agreed that execution speed is not critical here.  It's the update of a proc variable, not a tight loop or critical section.

Normally I'd leave it alone, but since you're writing a patch anyway, I'd do 'tolower' myself.  I dislike the stacked case statements on a single line like that.  (It's the only time I've seen them written that way.  Perhaps it's common and I've just missed it.)

Regards,
- Patrick
________________________________________
From: HPDD-discuss [hpdd-discuss-bounces@...ts.01.org] on behalf of Joe Perches [joe@...ches.com]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 5:53 PM
To: Rickard Strandqvist
Cc: devel@...verdev.osuosl.org; Fabian Frederick; Julia Lawall; James Simmons; Greg Kroah-Hartman; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; Greg Donald; HPDD-discuss@...ts.01.org; Andriy Skulysh
Subject: Re: [HPDD-discuss] [PATCH] staging: lustre: lustre: obdclass: lprocfs_status.c: Fix for possible null pointer dereference

On Mon, 2014-12-15 at 23:23 +0100, Rickard Strandqvist wrote:
> Hi Joe

Hello Rickard

> No, it does not look like end can be NULL then.
> Then remove the end != NULL instead?
> ...
>     if (end != NULL && *end == '.') {

Up to you.

> However, I am hesitant to the tolower()  I think double case is faster...?

I doubt code execution speed is paramount here.
Maybe see if the object code size is smaller one
way or the other.

_______________________________________________
HPDD-discuss mailing list
HPDD-discuss@...ts.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/hpdd-discuss
--
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/

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