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 <[email protected]>
Looks good. You can add: Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> SUSE Labs, CR -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
