linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] RDMA/mlx4: Remove unnessesary check in mlx4_ib_modify

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]

Date:   Tue, 18 May 2021 10:05:46 +0300
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc:     Jiapeng Chong <jiapeng.chong@...ux.alibaba.com>,
        yishaih@...dia.com, dledford@...hat.com,
        linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RDMA/mlx4: Remove unnessesary check in
 mlx4_ib_modify_wq()

On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 02:43:02PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 06:22:41PM +0800, Jiapeng Chong wrote:
> > cur_state and new_state are enums and when GCC considers
> > them as unsigned, the conditions are never met.
> 
> But doesn't gcc consider enums to be 'int' as the standard requires?

Ohh, I missed that.

> 
> This change looks really sketchy to me, cur_state and new_state are
> both userspace controlled data. We should not make assumptions about
> the underlying signedness of an enum when validating user data.

I still think that the right change should be in
ib_uverbs_ex_modify_wq(), so both mlx4 and mlx5 will be protected.

Thanks

> 
> Jason