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: <343f1fce-2699-2449-2965-7f00fd96ed94@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 1 Jul 2016 15:50:53 -0600
From:	Al Stone <ahs3@...hat.com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:	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 07/01/2016 03:44 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 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?
> 

That's the odd thing; there is no breakage.  Of any sort.

But, no one relies on those values for anything at this point.  I've got a
couple of ideas I'm working on that are easier if it does work right, however.


-- 
ciao,
al
-----------------------------------
Al Stone
Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.
ahs3@...hat.com
-----------------------------------