Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] iio: accel: adxl367: reject out-of-range FIFO entry count

[Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>]

On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 11:08:43 +0300
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 03:58:50PM +0800, Shengzhuo Wei wrote:
> > The FIFO entry count reported by the device can be as large as 1023
> > (the low byte plus the low two bits of the high byte), but fifo_buf[]
> > only has room for ADXL367_FIFO_SIZE (512) entries.
> > adxl367_push_fifo_data() passes the reported count straight to the FIFO
> > read, so a count above ADXL367_FIFO_SIZE overflows fifo_buf, a heap
> > out-of-bounds write of up to 1022 bytes into adjacent memory.
> > 
> > Rather than clamp the count and silently drop the excess, abort the
> > read: a count beyond the FIFO size means the device is returning
> > garbage, so the data cannot be trusted. The message is ratelimited
> > because a stuck device can raise the IRQ repeatedly.  
> 
> Aren't they already were discussed in linux-iio@ mailing list earlier?

I'm lost.  Yes it was discussed a few times, one of them in the v1 thread
for this.  Andy, can you be a bit more specific on what you mean here.
I for one am half asleep today so could do with the pointer!

> 
> ...
> 
> > +		dev_err_ratelimited(st->dev,
> > +				    "FIFO entry count %u exceeds FIFO size %lu\n",
> > +				    fifo_entries,
> > +				    (unsigned long)ADXL367_FIFO_SIZE);  
> 
> In majority of the explicit castings when printing a message they are wrong or
> unneeded. Use correct format specifiers to begin with.
> 
This one I agree with - why would we print it as a long unsigned given it is the
constant 512?