[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151110091923.GE26699@quack.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:19:23 +0100
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc: Petr Vandrovec <petr@...drovec.name>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] ncpfs: don't allow negative timeouts
On Tue 10-11-15 12:09:24, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> This code causes a static checker warning because it's a user controlled
> variable where we cap the upper bound but not the lower bound. If
> someone passes us a negative timeout then I guess lets set it to the
> default.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
IMHO it would be better to return error from the ioctl. Currently it would
just wrap when converting to u16 anyway...
Honza
>
> diff --git a/fs/ncpfs/ioctl.c b/fs/ncpfs/ioctl.c
> index 79b1130..c07498a 100644
> --- a/fs/ncpfs/ioctl.c
> +++ b/fs/ncpfs/ioctl.c
> @@ -525,7 +525,7 @@ static long __ncp_ioctl(struct inode *inode, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg
> switch (rqdata.cmd) {
> case NCP_LOCK_EX:
> case NCP_LOCK_SH:
> - if (rqdata.timeout == 0)
> + if (rqdata.timeout <= 0)
> rqdata.timeout = NCP_LOCK_DEFAULT_TIMEOUT;
> else if (rqdata.timeout > NCP_LOCK_MAX_TIMEOUT)
> rqdata.timeout = NCP_LOCK_MAX_TIMEOUT;
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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