linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fuse: BUG_ON's correction in fuse_dev_splice

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]

Date:   Mon, 19 Aug 2019 09:52:47 +0300
From:   Vasily Averin <vvs@...tuozzo.com>
To:     Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fuse: BUG_ON's correction in fuse_dev_splice_write()

On 8/1/19 2:01 PM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 8:33 AM Vasily Averin <vvs@...tuozzo.com> wrote:
>>
>> commit 963545357202 ("fuse: reduce allocation size for splice_write")
>> changed size of bufs array, so first BUG_ON should be corrected too.
>> Second BUG_ON become useless, first one also includes the second check:
>> any unsigned nbuf value cannot be less than 0.
> 
> This patch seems broken: it assumes that pipe->nrbufs doesn't change.
> Have you actually tested it?

You're right, I've missed it.
I've prepared second patch version which fixes first BUG_ON only.
checkpatch.pl also advises to replace BUG_ONs to WARN_ONs and 'unsigned' to 'unsigned int'
however I'm don't understand what it's better here:
- keep all as is, 
- or merge all changes together,
- or do it in separate patches,
- or do something else?

I believe it makes sense to remove BUG_ONs in separate patch, or may be merge it with current one,
but I do not like an idea to fight against bare 'unsigned' in fuse.

Could you please comment it?

Thank you,
	Vasily Averin