From: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firmware: dmi: Check DMI structure length
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2017 23:14:23 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170603231423.388f70b2@endymion> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75Vd1-9p4mZRie9cGG=giPt_2S-RfTfEo=fYRxYEOuv_EFw@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 21:45:37 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 9:40 PM, Jean Delvare <jdelvare@suse.de> wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 Jun 2017 19:06:36 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >> Your commit message should answer to the question why and what.
> >> You didn't put it there.
> >> Moreover, the change above per se doesn't belong to this — one logical
> >> change per patch.
> >
> > I'm confused. These changes totally belong to this patch. They belong
> > so much to it, that's the very reason why they are not described
> > separately in the commit message.
> >
> > The purpose of the patch is to check that the records are large enough
> > to contain the fields we need to access. Setting a pointer beyond the
> > end of the record _before_ performing that check makes no sense.
> >
> > I did not include these changes as performance optimizations, I
> > included them because they make the code conceptually correct. It's
> > even clearer for the last instance, as we are dereferencing the pointer
> > immediately, but in my opinion, even setting a pointer to a location
> > which may not exist is equally wrong and confusing for the reader.
> > That's why I moved that code after the length checks.
>
> You are talking here explicitly about third case which I agreed on.
>
> The two first ones are not the same.
> You didn't dereference them before check since your check is not
> against pointer.
>
> So, basically it means you are checking pointer _indirectly_.
Correct.
> I think we already spent too much time on this one.
Agreed.
> If you wish to leave your changes, update commit message accordingly.
No.
--
Jean Delvare
SUSE L3 Support
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-06-03 21:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-06-01 13:08 [PATCH] firmware: dmi: Check DMI structure length Jean Delvare
2017-06-01 13:16 ` Andy Shevchenko
2017-06-01 14:40 ` Jean Delvare
2017-06-01 16:06 ` Andy Shevchenko
2017-06-02 18:40 ` Jean Delvare
2017-06-02 18:45 ` Andy Shevchenko
2017-06-03 21:14 ` Jean Delvare [this message]
2017-06-01 14:00 ` Mika Westerberg
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170603231423.388f70b2@endymion \
--to=jdelvare@suse.de \
--cc=andy.shevchenko@gmail.com \
--cc=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.