[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200319194650.GA24804@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2020 21:46:50 +0200
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org, Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>,
Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@...hat.com>,
Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>,
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>,
Chris von Recklinghausen <crecklin@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] KEYS: Avoid false positive ENOMEM error on key
read
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 06:14:57PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> + * It is possible, though unlikely, that the key
> + * changes in between the up_read->down_read period.
> + * If the key becomes longer, we will have to
> + * allocate a larger buffer and redo the key read
> + * again.
> + */
> + if (!tmpbuf || unlikely(ret > tmpbuflen)) {
Shouldn't you check that tmpbuflen stays below buflen (why else
you had made copy of buflen otherwise)?
/Jarkko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists