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: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 11:46:23 +0000 From: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org> To: Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com> Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>, Jingoo Han <jingoohan1@...il.com>, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>, Gyungoh Yoo <jack.yoo@...worksinc.com>, Bryan Wu <cooloney@...il.com>, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH][V2] backlight: sky81452: insure while loop does not allow negative array indexing On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 07:58:26PM +0000, Colin King wrote: > From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com> > > In the unlikely event that num_entry is zero, the while loop > pre-decrements num_entry to cause negative array indexing into the > array sources. Fix this by iterating only if num_entry >= 0. > > Addresses-Coverity: ("Out-of-bounds read") > Fixes: f705806c9f35 ("backlight: Add support Skyworks SKY81452 backlight driver") > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com> > --- > > V2: fix typo in commit subject line Isn't the correct spelling "ensure"? > --- > drivers/video/backlight/sky81452-backlight.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/video/backlight/sky81452-backlight.c b/drivers/video/backlight/sky81452-backlight.c > index 2355f00f5773..f456930ce78e 100644 > --- a/drivers/video/backlight/sky81452-backlight.c > +++ b/drivers/video/backlight/sky81452-backlight.c > @@ -200,7 +200,7 @@ static struct sky81452_bl_platform_data *sky81452_bl_parse_dt( > } > > pdata->enable = 0; > - while (--num_entry) > + while (--num_entry >= 0) > pdata->enable |= (1 << sources[num_entry]); This look still looks buggy to me (so I'd second Walter's request to change it to a for loop). If the code genuinely does not contain a bug then it probably needs a prominent comment explaining why it is correct not to honour sources[0]! Daniel.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists