linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/10] hwmon: (amc6821) Stop accepting invalid pwm values

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]

Message-ID: <2569cc23-9ab8-45c8-8188-6d4547e49ecc@roeck-us.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 06:50:52 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@...rry.de>, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Farouk Bouabid <farouk.bouabid@...rry.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] hwmon: (amc6821) Stop accepting invalid pwm values

On 7/1/24 03:19, Quentin Schulz wrote:
> Hi Guenter,
> 
> On 6/28/24 5:13 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> The pwm value range is well defined from 0..255. Don't accept
>> any values outside this range.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
>> ---
>>   drivers/hwmon/amc6821.c | 14 ++++++++++----
>>   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/amc6821.c b/drivers/hwmon/amc6821.c
>> index 9b02b304c2f5..3c614a0bd192 100644
>> --- a/drivers/hwmon/amc6821.c
>> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/amc6821.c
>> @@ -360,8 +360,11 @@ static ssize_t pwm1_store(struct device *dev,
>>       if (ret)
>>           return ret;
>> +    if (val < 0 || val > 255)
>> +        return -EINVAL;
>> +
> 
> Why not use kstrtoul to avoid having to check for negative val? The same way that is done just below in this patch?
> 
> Additionally, why not using kstrtou8 so we don't have to do this check ourselves in the driver?
> 

Following my desire to minimize changes, but you have a point. I'll use kstrtou8().

>>       mutex_lock(&data->update_lock);
>> -    data->pwm1 = clamp_val(val , 0, 255);
>> +    data->pwm1 = val;
>>       i2c_smbus_write_byte_data(client, AMC6821_REG_DCY, data->pwm1);
>>       mutex_unlock(&data->update_lock);
>>       return count;
>> @@ -558,13 +561,16 @@ static ssize_t pwm1_auto_point_pwm_store(struct device *dev,
>>       struct amc6821_data *data = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>>       struct i2c_client *client = data->client;
>>       int dpwm;
>> -    long val;
>> -    int ret = kstrtol(buf, 10, &val);
>> +    unsigned long val;
>> +    int ret = kstrtoul(buf, 10, &val);
> 
> Same remark concerning kstrtou8 use.
> 
I'll use kstrtou8().

>>       if (ret)
>>           return ret;
>> +    if (val > 255)
>> +        return -EINVAL;
>> +
>>       mutex_lock(&data->update_lock);
>> -    data->pwm1_auto_point_pwm[1] = clamp_val(val, 0, 254);
> 
> We're suddenly allowing 255 as a valid value.
> 
> I don't see 255 triggering an obvious divide-by-0 issue in the code, nor any limitation from a quick look at the datasheet. 254 was introduced in the introducing commit, as well as the other 255... so probably an oversight by the original author? In any case, I would make this a separate commit or at the very least make this explicit in the commit log to show this isn't an oversight **right now** and that this change was desired.
> 

No, this is on purpose. pwm1_auto_point_pwm[2] is set to a constant
255, and pwm1_auto_point_pwm[1] has to be lower than that. As you had
noticed, I fixed this in a later commit, but I should have fixed it
here.

Thanks,
Guenter