linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] pktcdvd: Use clamp

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, 20 Jun 2023 16:24:48 +0300
From:   'Andy Shevchenko' <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] pktcdvd: Use clamp_val() instead of min()+max()

On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 12:06:49PM +0000, David Laight wrote:

...

> > +		*hi = clamp_val(*hi, 500, 1000000);
> 
> (standard rant about minmax.h)
> 
> clamp_val() is pretty much broken by design.
> It MIGHT be ok here but it casts both limits to the
> type of the value being compared.
> In general that is just plain wrong.
> 
> Like min_t() it is generally ok because the kernel only uses
> unsigned values between 0 and MAXINT.
> 
> If min/max were ok, then using clamp() should also be ok.

Submit a patch to fix it, if you think you can make it better.
Obviously your comment can be addressed separately if we even
need that.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko