netdev - Re: [PATCH] genetlink: fix unsigned int comparison with less than zero

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: <1479022304.4897.0.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date:   Sun, 13 Nov 2016 08:31:44 +0100
From:   Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:     Colin King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        pravin shelar <pshelar@....org>,
        Wei Yongjun <weiyongjun1@...wei.com>,
        Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
        Tycho Andersen <tycho.andersen@...onical.com>,
        Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] genetlink: fix unsigned int comparison with less than
 zero


> > I suppose it could be, since family IDs are allocated in a 16-bit
> > range
> > anyway. But family IDs can also never actually be negative, so
> > having
> > an unsigned int in the struct makes sense too.
> 
> All idr_* API's accept int, rather than unsigned int. This is my
> point.

Sure, but that's an internal implementation detail. The struct
genl_family is also an external API towards its users, and there
negative numbers make no sense whatsoever.

johannes