From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mimi Zohar Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add error check to hex2bin(). Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 17:43:08 -0400 Message-ID: <1311025388.3648.95.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1310977597-9666-1-git-send-email-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <201107182041.EHB78622.VOFSHFMOOFtLJQ@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <1310991796.3903.6.camel@smile> <201107182148.AGD21306.FOLtJVMSOOFQHF@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> <1311012230.3193.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1311016856.3648.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Tetsuo Handa , linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Andy Shevchenko Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 22:44 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote: > > >> > We probably don't need to define a separate 'safe' function. > >> There is an opponent on any approach. Although, small and fast error > >> route could be good. > > > As nothing but trusted/encrypted keys is using hex2bin, it shouldn't be > > a problem. :-) > The key word "until now". But people will start to use anything which > has public API, won't they? Someone with more experience than me needs to responds. > > I'll update trusted/encrypted keys to check the return > > code. > Actually another question shall we add __must_check to the prototype or not? Probably a good idea. thanks, Mimi