linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] i2c: mux: harden i2c_mux

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:   Mon, 19 Sep 2022 09:35:12 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
        linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: mux: harden i2c_mux_alloc() against integer
 overflows

On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 08:31:58PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> 
> > > The new variable makes it more readable, but beyond that, do you see any
> > > reason not to just directly compose the calls?
> > > 
> > 
> > You could do that too.
> > 
> > You pointed this out in your other email but the one thing that people
> > have to be careful of when assigning struct_size() is that the
> > "mux_size" variable has to be size_t.
> > 
> > The math in submit_create() from drivers/gpu/drm/msm/msm_gem_submit.c
> > is so terribly unreadable.  It works but it's so ugly.  Unfortunately,
> > I'm the person who wrote it.
> 
> I can't parse from that if the patch in question is okay or needs a
> respin? Could you kindly enlighten me?
> 

It doesn't need a respin.  We were just discussing related bugs with the
integer overflow safe functions.

regards,
dan carpenter