Re: [patch v2] ncpfs: don't allow negative timeouts

[Jan Kara]

On Wed 11-11-15 01:14:41, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> This code causes a static checker warning because it's a user controlled
> variable where we cap the upper bound but not the lower bound.  Let's
> return an -EINVAL for negative timeouts.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>

Looks good. You can add:

Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>

								Honza

> ---
> v2: in the original I just ignored the invalid data and went with the
>     default but now it returns -EINVAL.
> 
> diff --git a/fs/ncpfs/ioctl.c b/fs/ncpfs/ioctl.c
> index 79b1130..ebf45d2 100644
> --- a/fs/ncpfs/ioctl.c
> +++ b/fs/ncpfs/ioctl.c
> @@ -525,7 +525,9 @@ static long __ncp_ioctl(struct inode *inode, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg
>  			switch (rqdata.cmd) {
>  				case NCP_LOCK_EX:
>  				case NCP_LOCK_SH:
> -						if (rqdata.timeout == 0)
> +						if (rqdata.timeout < 0)
> +							return -EINVAL;
> +						else if (rqdata.timeout == 0)
>  							rqdata.timeout = NCP_LOCK_DEFAULT_TIMEOUT;
>  						else if (rqdata.timeout > NCP_LOCK_MAX_TIMEOUT)
>  							rqdata.timeout = NCP_LOCK_MAX_TIMEOUT;
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/