[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c00d9b0f-69d7-4243-bf3d-cfa5cb18e495@kadam.mountain>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2023 17:26:59 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Cc: Linke Li <lilinke99@...mail.com>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Linke Li <lilinke99@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] isofs: fix undefined behavior in iso_date()
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 02:11:02PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Dan Carpenter
> > Sent: 10 July 2023 10:57
> >
> > It looks like maybe there is an issue with "year" as well.
> >
> > fs/isofs/util.c
> > 19 int iso_date(u8 *p, int flag)
> > 20 {
> > 21 int year, month, day, hour, minute, second, tz;
> > 22 int crtime;
> > 23
> > 24 year = p[0];
> > ^^^^^
> > year is 0-255.
> ....
> > 32
> > 33 if (year < 0) {
> > ^^^^^^^^
> > But this checks year for < 0 which is impossible. Should it be:
> >
> > year = (signed char)p[0];?
>
> Or not?
>
> What happens in 2027 ?
> I bet the value has to be treated an unsigned.
Yeah. Good point. We could delete that if statement and pull the whole
function in a tab.
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists