linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2][next] RDMA/hns: fix comparison of unsigned long variable 'end' with less than zero

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190724193157.GA6620@ziepe.ca>
Date:   Wed, 24 Jul 2019 16:31:57 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To:     Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>
Cc:     Lijun Ou <oulijun@...wei.com>, Wei Hu <xavier.huwei@...wei.com>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2][next] RDMA/hns: fix comparison of unsigned long
 variable 'end' with less than zero

On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:21:00AM +0100, Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
> 
> Currently the comparison of end with less than zero is always false
> because end is an unsigned long.  Also, replace checks of end with
> non-zero with end > 0 as it is possible that the #defined decrement
> may be changed in the future causing end to step over zero and go
> negative.
> 
> The initialization of end with 0 is also redundant as this value is
> never read and is later set to HW_SYNC_TIMEOUT_MSECS, so fix this by
> initializing it with this value to begin with.
> 
> Addresses-Coverity: ("Unsigned compared against 0")
> Fixes: 669cefb654cb ("RDMA/hns: Remove jiffies operation in disable interrupt context")
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>
> ---
>  drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_hem.c   |  4 ++--
>  drivers/infiniband/hw/hns/hns_roce_hw_v1.c | 12 ++++++------
>  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

Applied to for-next, thanks

Jason