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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 17:13:08 -0800 From: Scott Branden <scott.branden@...adcom.com> To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com> Cc: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, David Brown <david.brown@...aro.org>, Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, BCM Kernel Feedback <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/7] test_firmware: add partial read support for request_firmware_into_buf Reponses inline. Luis - please have a look as well. On 2020-02-21 10:30 a.m., Scott Branden wrote: > Hi Dan, > > Thanks for your review and valuable comments. > Will have to investigate fully and correct anything wrong. > > On 2020-02-20 12:42 a.m., Dan Carpenter wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 04:48:21PM -0800, Scott Branden wrote: >>> +static int test_dev_config_update_size_t(const char *buf, >>> + size_t size, >>> + size_t *cfg) >>> +{ >>> + int ret; >>> + long new; >>> + >>> + ret = kstrtol(buf, 10, &new); >>> + if (ret) >>> + return ret; >>> + >>> + if (new > SIZE_MAX) >> This "new" variable is long and SIZE_MAX is ULONG_MAX so the condition >> can't be true. Removed the check. >> >>> + return -EINVAL; >>> + >>> + mutex_lock(&test_fw_mutex); >>> + *(size_t *)cfg = new; >>> + mutex_unlock(&test_fw_mutex); >>> + >>> + /* Always return full write size even if we didn't consume all */ >>> + return size; >>> +} >>> + >>> +static ssize_t test_dev_config_show_size_t(char *buf, int cfg) >>> +{ >>> + size_t val; >>> + >>> + mutex_lock(&test_fw_mutex); >>> + val = cfg; >>> + mutex_unlock(&test_fw_mutex); >> Both val and cfg are stack variables so there is no need for locking. >> Probably you meant to pass a pointer to cfg? I am following the existing code as was done for test_dev_config_show_bool(), test_dev_config_show_int(), test_dev_config_show_u8() Mutex probably not needed but I don't think I need to deviate from the rest of the test code. Luis, could you please explain what the rest of your code is doing? >> >>> + >>> + return snprintf(buf, PAGE_SIZE, "%zu\n", val); >>> +} >>> + >>> static ssize_t test_dev_config_show_int(char *buf, int cfg) >>> { >>> int val; >> regards, >> dan carpenter >> >> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists