lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v1 1/1] USB: serial: Add boundry check for read_urbs array access
On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 03:29:48PM -0800, sathyanarayanan kuppuswamy wrote:
>
>
> On 03/08/2018 12:54 AM, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, den 07.03.2018, 13:41 -0800 schrieb sathyanarayanan
> > kuppuswamy :
> > > On 03/07/2018 12:58 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > So I don't see why your check is needed, what other code path would ever
> > > > call this function in a way that the bounds check would be needed?
> > > void usb_serial_generic_read_bulk_callback(struct urb *urb)
> > >
> > > 385         for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(port->read_urbs); ++i) {
> > > 386                 if (urb == port->read_urbs[i])
> > > 387                         break;
> > > 388         }
> > >
> > > In here, after this for loop is done (without any matching urb), i value
> > > will be equal to ARRAY_SIZE(port->read_urbs). So there is a possibility
> > > of usb_serial_generic_submit_read_urb() getting called with this invalid
> > > index.
> > If this happens the function was called for a stray URB.
> > Your check comes to late. We have called set_bit with an invalid index
> > and other shit.
> > We definitely do not just want to return an error in that case.
> In that case do you think we should use some WARN_ON() for invalid index in
> usb_serial_generic_read_bulk_callback()?

No, again, how could that ever happen?

Don't add pointless error checking for things that are impossible to
ever hit :)

thanks,

greg k-h

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-09 00:44    [W:0.042 / U:0.112 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site