linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] unwind: Fix signedness bug in unwind_deferred

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: <aR36uKfrD-kgqclK@stanley.mountain>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2025 20:13:28 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] unwind: Fix signedness bug in unwind_deferred_request()

On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 09:24:58AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 11:10:43 +0300
> Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org> wrote:
> 
> > The "bit" value comes from "work->bit".  It is set to -1 if we cancel
> > the work in unwind_deferred_cancel().  It needs to be signed because
> > we check for negative values.  Change the type from unsigned long to int.
> > 
> > Fixes: 357eda2d7450 ("unwind deferred: Use SRCU unwind_deferred_task_work()")
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
> > ---
> >  kernel/unwind/deferred.c | 3 +--
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/unwind/deferred.c b/kernel/unwind/deferred.c
> > index a88fb481c4a3..8dc11e0d9374 100644
> > --- a/kernel/unwind/deferred.c
> > +++ b/kernel/unwind/deferred.c
> > @@ -232,8 +232,7 @@ int unwind_deferred_request(struct unwind_work *work, u64 *cookie)
> >  	struct unwind_task_info *info = &current->unwind_info;
> >  	int twa_mode = TWA_RESUME;
> >  	unsigned long old, bits;
> > -	unsigned long bit;
> > -	int ret;
> > +	int bit, ret;
> 
> I'm fine with the change to bit, but please do not put them on the same
> row. I only do that when the values are related. bit and ret are *not*
> related.

Sure, I've sent a v2.

regards,
dan carpenter