linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] hwmon: (ntc_thermistor) return error instead of clipping on OOB

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <51fd276d-b20a-4791-ac05-c423025855c0@roeck-us.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2025 12:52:38 -0800
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Maud Spierings | GOcontroll <maudspierings@...ontroll.com>
Cc: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
	"linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hwmon: (ntc_thermistor) return error instead of clipping
 on OOB

On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 01:35:53PM +0000, Maud Spierings | GOcontroll wrote:
> >
> >Most of the above should be after "---" since it is irrelevant for the commit log.
> 
> I believe my cover letter seperated it correctly after my signed-off-by
> tag.
> 
Yes, you are correct. I missed the second (or, rather, first) "---"
above. Sorry for the noise.

> >> +     /*
> >> +      * theoretically data->comp[0].ohm can be greater than INT_MAX as it is an
> >> +      * unsigned integer, but it doesn't make any sense for it to be so as the
> >> +      * maximum return value of this function is INT_MAX, so it will never be
> >> +      * able to properly calculate that temperature.
> >> +      */
> >>        if (n > INT_MAX)
> >>                n = INT_MAX;
> >
> >I am not a friend of theoretic code or comments like this. Please drop.
> >The original code was intended to catch out-of-bounds values which would
> >otherwise have been reported as error, not to catch unrealistic resistor
> >values in the compensation tables.
> 
> So, drop the check and comment? Or just drop the comment? I was thinking
> to fully remove that check in an earlier comment in my cover letter.

Drop both.

Thanks,
Guenter