linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mfd: tps65911-comparator: Fix an off by one bug

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: <20180420090104.pwejjqdjh2d2jlv3@mwanda>
Date:   Fri, 20 Apr 2018 12:01:04 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:     Jorge Eduardo Candelaria <jedu@...mlogic.co.uk>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: tps65911-comparator: Fix an off by one bug

On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 09:39:09AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 09:09:43AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > On Thu, 19 Apr 2018, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > 
> > > > The tps_comparators[] array is used in two places.  We only access the
> > > > COMP1 (1) and COMP2 (2) elements.  Unfortunately, we're accessing the
> > > > wrong elements and also one element beyond the end of the array.  There
> > > > was supposed to be a zero element at the start of the array which is
> > > > isn't accessed but makes the math work out nicely.
> > > 
> > > I normally just apply patches from you, but this is a hack, right?
> > 
> > I liked it, I thought it was nice.  It uses 32 bytes but any fix was
> > going to use *some* memory.  I don't have strong feelings about it
> > though, if you want to write a different patch I can do that instead.
> 
> #define COMP                                    0
> #define COMP1                                   1
> #define COMP2                                   2
> 
> It's unclear what the defines mean, but if COMP really does exist (is
> there a datasheet for this device?) then your solution is a suitable
> one.  However, if there is a COMP, then why isn't it used?
> 
> If it doesn't actually exist then this would be more appropriate
> change I think:
> 
> #define COMP1                                   0
> #define COMP2                                   1
> 

I hate to define something_one as zero...  Let me send a different
patch for this and see what you think.

regards,
dan carpenter