linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] clkdev: Update clkdev id usage to allow for longer names

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: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 16:09:03 +0000
From: "Ruhl, Michael J" <michael.j.ruhl@...el.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
CC: "linux@...linux.org.uk" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] clkdev: Update clkdev id usage to allow for longer names

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
>Sent: Friday, February 23, 2024 10:48 AM
>To: Ruhl, Michael J <michael.j.ruhl@...el.com>
>Cc: linux@...linux.org.uk; linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org; linux-
>kernel@...r.kernel.org
>Subject: Re: [PATCH] clkdev: Update clkdev id usage to allow for longer names
>
>On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 09:18:14AM -0500, Michael J. Ruhl wrote:
>> clkdev ID information is limited to arrays of 20 and 16 bytes
>> (MAX_DEV_ID/MAX_CON_ID).  It is possible that the IDs could be
>> longer that.  If so, the lookup will fail because the "real ID"
>> will not match the copied value.
>
>Perhaps you need to add a real example.

How about:

Generating a device name for the I2C Designware module using the PCI
ID can result in a name of:

i2c_designware.39424

clkdev_create will store:

i2c_designware.3942

The stored name is one off and will not match correctly during probe.

>> Increase the size of the IDs to allow for longer names.
>
>...
>
>> -#define MAX_DEV_ID	20
>> -#define MAX_CON_ID	16
>> +#define MAX_DEV_ID	32
>> +#define MAX_CON_ID	32
>
>Do we need to alter both?

It wasn't clear to why there was a difference in sizes.  At the moment the CON_ID isn't
causing me an issue.  Shall I drop that part of the change?

Thanks!

Mike

>--
>With Best Regards,
>Andy Shevchenko
>