linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] stm class: correct masterID range in setting via sysfs

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]

Date:	Fri, 8 Apr 2016 20:40:10 +0800
From:	Chunyan Zhang <zhang.chunyan@...aro.org>
To:	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
	Lyra Zhang <zhang.lyra@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] stm class: correct masterID range in setting via sysfs

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 7:53 PM, Alexander Shishkin
<alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> Chunyan Zhang <zhang.chunyan@...aro.org> writes:
>
>> The type of masterID is defined as 'unsigned int', theoretically one
>> can set masterID with a number larger than 'INT_MAX' as long as
>> 'stm_data::sw_end' is larger than 'INT_MAX'.
>>
>> Also, 'stm_data::start' and 'stm_data::end' is initialized in respective
>> drivers which should be able to use any value less than 'UINT_MAX' for
>> their masterIDs, of course including those values larger than 'INT_MAX',
>> but the current policy is wrongly assuming that masterIDs would not be
>> larger than 'INT_MAX'.  This patch just corrected that.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chunyan Zhang <zhang.chunyan@...aro.org>
>> ---
>>  drivers/hwtracing/stm/policy.c | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/stm/policy.c b/drivers/hwtracing/stm/policy.c
>> index 1db1896..ce3edfd 100644
>> --- a/drivers/hwtracing/stm/policy.c
>> +++ b/drivers/hwtracing/stm/policy.c
>> @@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ stp_policy_node_masters_store(struct config_item *item, const char *page,
>>               goto unlock;
>>
>>       /* must be within [sw_start..sw_end], which is an inclusive range */
>> -     if (first > INT_MAX || last > INT_MAX || first > last ||
>> +     if (first > UINT_MAX || last > UINT_MAX || first > last ||
>
> Of course, I wasn't paying attention, testing an unsigned integer for
> being greater than UINT_MAX doesn't really make sense.
>

Ah right, checking first/last > INT/UINT_MAX is not needed actually.

Thanks for double review,
Chunyan

> Regards,
> --
> Alex