linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] USB: core: replace memdup_user with memdup_array_user in proc_do

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: <2025100824-payday-anemic-b179@gregkh>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2025 13:05:01 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Thorsten Blum <thorsten.blum@...ux.dev>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Rex Nie <rex.nie@...uarmicro.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: core: replace memdup_user with memdup_array_user in
 proc_do_submiturb

On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 02:25:57PM +0200, Thorsten Blum wrote:
> Use memdup_array_user() instead of memdup_user() in proc_do_submiturb().
> Compared to memdup_user(), memdup_array_user() automatically checks for
> multiplication overflow. Remove the obsolete local variable 'isofrmlen'.

But there is no chance for overflow here, right?

I'm all for using "proper" functions, but there is no need to go and
rewrite existing code for them if you can't test the results.  Did you
test this?

> Return early if an error occurs instead of manually setting 'ret' and
> using 'goto error'.

There is no need to do that, please leave the code flow alone as we
"know" it works properly as-is.

> No functional changes intended.

"intended", but did you succeed?  :)

Testing is good, please do that.

thanks,

greg k-h