linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] ACPI: fix incorrect counts returned by acpi_parse_entries

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: <CAJZ5v0gPn=fRNOdbbNYesWm=MArE4xRuu_tPDjCRq8ZEq9o_TA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 1 Jul 2016 23:44:41 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To:	Al Stone <ahs3@...hat.com>
Cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ACPI: fix incorrect counts returned by acpi_parse_entries_array()

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 11:36 PM, Al Stone <ahs3@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 07/01/2016 03:25 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 11:21 PM, Al Stone <ahs3@...hat.com> wrote:
>>> The static function acpi_parse_entries_array() is provided an array of
>>> type struct acpi_subtable_proc that has a callback function and a count.
>>> The count should reflect how many times the callback has been successfully
>>> called.  However, the current code only increments the 0th element of the
>>> array, regardless of the number of entries in the array, or which callback
>>> has been invoked.  The fix is to use the index into the array, instead of
>>> a pointer to the beginning of the array.
>>
>> OK, so it would be good to say what the consequences of the problem are too.
>>
>
> Hrm.  So replace the last sentence with something like:
>
>    The fix is to use the index into the array, instead of
>    a pointer to the beginning of the array, so that the count
>    for each element in the array in incremented by the
>    corresponding callback.
>
> That feels a little clunky but is it closer to what you were
> thinking?

Well, not really.

The code is arguably incorrect, but is there anything that does not
work as expected as a result?  Any functional breakage?  Any
misleading messages printed?