[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <193a5d30-dd0c-fadb-3358-2fd46fa47e60@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2023 19:33:05 +0200
From: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...am.me.uk>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/PCI: Fix a sanity check in
pirq_convert_irt_table()
Le 19/05/2023 à 13:21, Maciej W. Rozycki a écrit :
> On Sat, 6 May 2023, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
>
>> We compare the size in bytes of a struct (and its ending flexible array)
>> with the number of elements in a flexible array.
>
> Incorrect, see the inline documentation for the struct.
Ouch.
As you explained in your reply for the 2nd patch:
irT_routing_table != irQ_routing_table
Sorry for the noise.
CJ
>
>> This is wrong and "ir->size < ir->used" is likely to be always false.
>
> Hopefully, but we've seen all kinds of rubbish in PC BIOS data, and this
> data structure seems available for OEMs to program with a tool called BCP.
> Better safe than sorry. Therefore, NAK.
>
> Maciej
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists