netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] tun: update file current position

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

Message-Id: <20131206.124500.1976272290413710707.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Fri, 06 Dec 2013 12:45:00 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	zwu.kernel@...il.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	wuzhy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] tun: update file current position

From: Zhi Yong Wu <zwu.kernel@...il.com>
Date: Fri,  6 Dec 2013 17:08:50 +0800

> From: Zhi Yong Wu <wuzhy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zhi Yong Wu <wuzhy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>

Also applied and queued up for -stable, thanks.

I noticed in these two cases that that min_t() adjustment of 'ret'
seems strange.  I can't understand why it's needed.

If, for example, tun_do_read() really did read more than 'len'
bytes:

1) That would write past the end of the buffer.

2) Writing a different value to the ->ki_pos would mean
   that ->ki_pos is now inaccurate.

Unless someone can explain why the min_t() is needed, we should remove
it.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html