linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] perf script python: Fix string vs byte array resolving

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160715163848.GB18928@kernel.org>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jul 2016 13:38:48 -0300
From:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To:	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] perf script python: Fix string vs byte array
 resolving

Em Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 01:37:31PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> Em Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 06:13:10PM +0200, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 12:02:31PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > 
> > SNIP
> > 
> > > > for "AA\1\0" this returns "1" although that should return "0".
> > > > 
> > > > orig len 4
> > > > decremented len 3
> > > > for:
> > > > 0 1
> > > > 
> > > > index 2 would not be inspected. Or am I missing something?
> > > > 
> > > > I think that the for check should be "i < len"
> > > 
> > > Yes it should be. I think we got the two solutions mixed up.
> > > 
> > > With the above len--, it should be i < len, but when we did the check
> > > for zero at the end, we needed the i < len - 1
> > 
> > ugh right.. should be 'i < len' check in the for loop,
> > 
> > there's also the patch 2/3 that needs to be changed
> > 
> > Arnaldo,
> > please let me know if you need me to resend this.
> 
> So I need to drop those, even with Rostedt's acked-by? Ok, please
> resend, hopefully this time with a Tested-by from the reporter?

I removed the first two, as the second needs context from the first,
kept the third one, so please resend just the first two.

- Arnaldo