netdev - Re: [net 3/6] net/mlx5: FPGA, return -EINVAL if size is 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: <CAJ3xEMjDaWHo-mVsX91d_HzyWdcmjTy5zSMHkyXwTFxLj=XwAw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Nov 2017 15:23:44 +0900
From:   Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
To:     Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
Cc:     Kamal Heib <kamalh@...lanox.com>,
        Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Yevgeny Kliteynik <kliteyn@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [net 3/6] net/mlx5: FPGA, return -EINVAL if size is zero

On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-11-09 at 18:12 +0900, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Kamal Heib <kamalh@...lanox.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2017-11-08 at 23:13 +0900, Or Gerlitz wrote:
>> > > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.c
>> > > om>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > From: Kamal Heib <kamalh@...lanox.com>
>> > > >
>> > > > In the current code, if a size of zero is passed to
>> > > > mlx5_fpga_mem_{read|write}_i2c() functions the "err"
>> > >
>> > > Don't we need to fix the call site where zero size is provided
>> > > and
>> > > not
>> > > in called function?
>> > >
>> >
>> > Isn't sending down a zero size a sign for a bug which we are not
>> > fixing?
>> > >
>> >
>> > Both functions are called from an exported symbols. so I think the
>> > size
>> > validation should be within this two functions just like the case
>> > of
>> > checking that mdev isn't set.
>>
>> mmm, I see exported to who exactly? how are they being called, by
>> func pointer?
>> can you point to the call sites?
>
> Or, are you ok with this patch ? I would like to post V2 with the
> reviewed-by tag fix.

The RB tag issue was on another patch.. for this patch I realized after talking
to the author that it comes to fix a build warning. I would be happy
if we can clarify
that in the change log.