linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] acpi: nfit: fix narrowing conversion in acpi_nfit

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <e8e39191429d4211a0e9a784c5eb2288@mt-integration.ru>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2025 18:37:41 +0000
From: "Murad Masimov " <m.masimov@...integration.ru>
To: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>, Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>, "Dan
 Williams" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
CC: Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki"
	<rafael@...nel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, "nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev"
	<nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev>, "linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "lvc-project@...uxtesting.org"
	<lvc-project@...uxtesting.org>, "stable@...r.kernel.org"
	<stable@...r.kernel.org>,
	"syzbot+c80d8dc0d9fa81a3cd8c@...kaller.appspotmail.com"
	<syzbot+c80d8dc0d9fa81a3cd8c@...kaller.appspotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] acpi: nfit: fix narrowing conversion in acpi_nfit_ctl

> I tend to agree this is not ideal.  But IMO the issue is that family is
> treated as an int throughout the code rather than u64.  Even u32 would
> have been better than int because negative numbers are not allowed AFAICT
> just skimming the code.
> 
> Unfortunately, ripping through the code to change family to u32 is
> probably not worth the churn.  I'll think on this but I'm tempted to apply
> this.
> 
> Ira

Hi,

I believe this patch is better suited for the stable branches.
Additionally, replacing int to u32 or u64 in all relevant parts of the
code seems too risky, as it could potentially introduce new bugs.

Given the discussion so far, would it be appropriate to resend the same
patch, but with a more detailed commit message this time?

Thank you