[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e5f8282c-60e0-cefe-8ee6-2690a24e3b60@codeaurora.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 01:04:02 +0530
From: Mukesh Ojha <mojha@...eaurora.org>
To: Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>
Cc: kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] n_tty: check for negative and zero space return from
tty_write_room
On 3/28/2019 10:40 PM, Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
>
> The return from tty_write_room could potentially be negative if
> a tty write_room driver returns an error number (not that any seem
> to do). Rather than just check for a zero return, also check for
> a -ve return. This avoids the unsigned nr being set to a large unsigned
> value on the assignment from variable space and can lead to overflowing
> the buffer buf. Better to be safe than assume all write_room
> implementations in tty drivers are going to do the right thing.
>
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
Looks reasonable to me.
Reviewed-by: Mukesh Ojha <mojha@...eaurora.org>
-Mukesh.
> ---
> drivers/tty/n_tty.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/tty/n_tty.c b/drivers/tty/n_tty.c
> index 9cdb0fa3c4bf..66630787fbf9 100644
> --- a/drivers/tty/n_tty.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/n_tty.c
> @@ -550,7 +550,7 @@ static ssize_t process_output_block(struct tty_struct *tty,
> mutex_lock(&ldata->output_lock);
>
> space = tty_write_room(tty);
> - if (!space) {
> + if (space <= 0) {
> mutex_unlock(&ldata->output_lock);
> return 0;
> }
Powered by blists - more mailing lists