linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] dell-wmi: Process only one event on devices with interface version 0

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]

Message-ID: <20160112201246.GA19348@eudyptula.hq.kempniu.pl>
Date:	Tue, 12 Jan 2016 21:12:46 +0100
From:	Michał Kępień <kernel@...pniu.pl>
To:	Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@...il.com>
Cc:	Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
	Gabriele Mazzotta <gabriele.mzt@...il.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] dell-wmi: Process only one event on devices with
 interface version 0

> > Wouldn't it be a bit more clear if we clamped buffer_size before
> > setting buffer_end?  E.g. like this:
> > 
> > 	if (buffer_size == 0)
> > 		return;
> > 
> > 	if (dell_wmi_interface_version == 0 &&
> > 	    buffer_size > buffer_entry[0] + 1)
> > 		buffer_size = buffer_entry[0] + 1;
> > 
> > 	buffer_end = buffer_entry + buffer_size;
> 
> Before return adds correct cleanup part and code will be same as my 
> original patch.
> 
> So if more people think that your code is cleaner I'm OK with replacing 
> it.

Both solutions are fine and I realize I'm a bit late to the party as you
posted the original patch almost 3 weeks ago, so I don't want to delay
it any longer.  I think it's just a matter of deciding whether to
enforce the buffer size limit using buffer_size or buffer_end.  As the
first option involves a little bit less writing, I thought I'd suggest
it.

> > One more minor nit: you should probably decide between "first" and
> > "one" as the phrase "only first one event" (found both in the commit
> > message and in the code comment) sounds incorrect to me.
> 
> Feel free to correct commit message, I'm not very good in english...
> 
> It should mean something like this... in buffer received by bios can be 
> more events. That while loop iterate over events. And this my patch on 
> machines with wmi version 0 will process only *one* event. And that 
> event is *first* in buffer.

Don't worry, I understood your intentions from the commit message, so I
don't think it's worth posting a v3 only to correct minor stylistic
errors.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Kępień