[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jJ61T_t-Out9OZQeVC0KB5PQ+Kik-6eynTXE0nBCFYimw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 19:13:34 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>
Cc: "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>,
"Luis R . Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] pipe: simplify round_pipe_size()
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 6:52 PM, Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 02:27:10PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>> > @@ -1054,9 +1048,6 @@ static long pipe_set_size(struct pipe_inode_info *pipe, unsigned long arg)
>> > return -EINVAL;
>> > nr_pages = size >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>> >
>> > - if (!nr_pages)
>> > - return -EINVAL;
>> > -
>>
>> I would just leave this hunk anyway: it's defensive for any future
>> changes. Maybe add a comment describing why it's currently redundant?
>>
>
> I don't know; I find it really confusing to have two slightly different checks
> for the same thing, as it implies that they actually need to be there for a
> reason. How about just checking nr_pages?
>
> size = round_pipe_size(arg);
> nr_pages = size >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>
> if (nr_pages == 0)
> return -EINVAL;
Oh yeah! I like that.
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists