linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] rtw88: Remove unnecessary check code

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]

Message-ID: <CA+ASDXNm_aKAJcJVCx45VqAXTgXjfOju7xZPa_3MAvBzn2r7_w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Jul 2021 11:16:11 -0700
From:   Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
To:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     Len Baker <len.baker@....com>,
        Yan-Hsuan Chuang <tony0620emma@...il.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Pkshih <pkshih@...ltek.com>,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        "<netdev@...r.kernel.org>" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] rtw88: Remove unnecessary check code

On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 11:34 PM Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>
> Len Baker <len.baker@....com> writes:
>
> > The rtw_pci_init_rx_ring function is only ever called with a fixed
> > constant or RTK_MAX_RX_DESC_NUM for the "len" argument. Since this
> > constant is defined as 512, the "if (len > TRX_BD_IDX_MASK)" check
> > can never happen (TRX_BD_IDX_MASK is defined as GENMASK(11, 0) or in
> > other words as 4095).
> >
> > So, remove this check.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Len Baker <len.baker@....com>
>
> Are everyone ok with this version?

I suppose? I'm not really sure where the line should be drawn on
excessive bounds checking, false warnings from otherwise quite useful
static analysis tools, etc., but I suppose it doesn't make much sense
to add additional excess bounds checks just to quiet Coverity.

It might be nice to include the true motivation in the patch
description though, which is: "this also quiets a false warning from
Coverity".

Anyway, feel free to pick one of these:

Shrug-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>

or

Reviewed-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>