linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 1/5] lib: fix _parse_integer

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: <aYS_OGzRU8Usp7Jr@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2026 18:03:04 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
To: Dmitry Antipov <dmantipov@...dex.ru>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
	"Darrick J . Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
	linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/5] lib: fix _parse_integer_limit() to handle overflow

On Thu, Feb 05, 2026 at 12:04:14PM +0300, Dmitry Antipov wrote:
> On Wed, 2026-02-04 at 16:31 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 
> > In case you would need a v6, we can leave some of the lines untouched if we
> > switch to for-loop instead of while, but it might make the for-loop quite long.
> 
> Hmm...the for-loop might be:
> 
> for (res = 0, rv = 0; max_chars--; rv++, s++) {

res = 0 should be left outside, it's not part of the for-loop iterators.

>         ...
> }
> 
> and it makes _parse_integer_limit() a few lines shorter.

Yes, but more disruption on the code, so there are pros and cons,
but if you decide to go with it in v6, I won't object.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko