linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] watchdog: wdat_wdg: Using the existed function to check parameter timeout

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]

Date:   Tue, 26 Apr 2022 11:04:32 +0800
From:   Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org>
To:     Liu Xinpeng <liuxp11@...natelecom.cn>
Cc:     wim@...ux-watchdog.org, linux@...ck-us.net,
        linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] watchdog: wdat_wdg: Using the existed function to
 check parameter timeout

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 04:22:10PM +0800, Liu Xinpeng wrote:
>  #define MAX_WDAT_ACTIONS ACPI_WDAT_ACTION_RESERVED
> +#define WDAT_TIMEOUT_MIN     1
>  
>  /**
>   * struct wdat_instruction - Single ACPI WDAT instruction
> @@ -344,6 +345,7 @@ static int wdat_wdt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	wdat->period = tbl->timer_period;
>  	wdat->wdd.min_hw_heartbeat_ms = wdat->period * tbl->min_count;
>  	wdat->wdd.max_hw_heartbeat_ms = wdat->period * tbl->max_count;
> +	wdat->wdd.min_timeout = WDAT_TIMEOUT_MIN;
>  	wdat->stopped_in_sleep = tbl->flags & ACPI_WDAT_STOPPED;
>  	wdat->wdd.info = &wdat_wdt_info;
>  	wdat->wdd.ops = &wdat_wdt_ops;
> @@ -450,8 +452,7 @@ static int wdat_wdt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  	 * watchdog properly after it has opened the device. In some cases
>  	 * the BIOS default is too short and causes immediate reboot.
>  	 */
> -	if (timeout * 1000 < wdat->wdd.min_hw_heartbeat_ms ||
> -	    timeout * 1000 > wdat->wdd.max_hw_heartbeat_ms) {
> +	if (watchdog_timeout_invalid(&wdat->wdd, timeout)) {

Probably lacking of the context, I failed to see why the checks are
equivalent.  Could you provide more information?