[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ba294b1d861142ca8f7b204356009dd0@bfs.de>
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2020 08:40:28 +0000
From: Walter Harms <wharms@....de>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
"Tigran A. Aivazian" <aivazian.tigran@...il.com>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org" <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: AW: [PATCH] bfs: prevent underflow in bfs_find_entry()
________________________________________
Von: kernel-janitors-owner@...r.kernel.org <kernel-janitors-owner@...r.kernel.org> im Auftrag von Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Gesendet: Samstag, 7. März 2020 07:08
An: Tigran A. Aivazian
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Betreff: [PATCH] bfs: prevent underflow in bfs_find_entry()
We check if "namelen" is larger than BFS_NAMELEN but we don't check
if it's less than zero so it causes a static checker.
fs/bfs/dir.c:346 bfs_find_entry() warn: no lower bound on 'namelen'
It's nicer to make it unsigned anyway.
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
---
fs/bfs/dir.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/bfs/dir.c b/fs/bfs/dir.c
index d8dfe3a0cb39..46a2663e5eb2 100644
--- a/fs/bfs/dir.c
+++ b/fs/bfs/dir.c
@@ -326,7 +326,7 @@ static struct buffer_head *bfs_find_entry(struct inode *dir,
struct buffer_head *bh = NULL;
struct bfs_dirent *de;
const unsigned char *name = child->name;
- int namelen = child->len;
+ unsigned int namelen = child->len;
*res_dir = NULL;
if (namelen > BFS_NAMELEN)
hi Dan,
the namelen usage is fishy. It goes into bfs_namecmp()
where it is checked for namelen < BFS_NAMELEN, leaving
only the case ==.
bfs_namecmp() expects an int, so i would expect a warning.
Perhaps in this case it is better to change the if() into
if ( namelen <= 0 || namelen >= BFS_NAMELEN)
return NULL;
note: bfs_add_entry has the same "issue"
jm2c,
re,
wh
--
2.11.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists