From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62583C33CA9 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 01:16:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C19A207E0 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 01:16:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="xjQfoiih" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 0C19A207E0 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47xXbn0BYNzDqMy for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 12:16:37 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=kernel.org (client-ip=198.145.29.99; helo=mail.kernel.org; envelope-from=timur@kernel.org; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=xjQfoiih; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47xXWv0zrjzDqNG for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 12:13:15 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from [192.168.1.20] (cpe-24-28-70-126.austin.res.rr.com [24.28.70.126]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C7143207FF; Tue, 14 Jan 2020 01:13:11 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1578964392; bh=0gpl/fZLuDcM6R2f88rRQhFEHgQPzojGamoAcz0JAow=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=xjQfoiihel1d1unJsEk43pkau7rk+TfPg80uNoSkr/zwFGN9pBWyGB4AsRfz+zR4o xlhYWpnWc49QiHgpWj7zDCvbJaVzR/qlB8fXR5X48NAHcgX7mv6lujb6d5pdXh7Yu8 Sqpm1pJs28C298U+aQwAlLGph8h7xjwB68TqlgnI= Subject: Re: [PATCH] evh_bytechan: fix out of bounds accesses From: Timur Tabi To: Stephen Rothwell References: <20200109183912.5fcb52aa@canb.auug.org.au> <20200114072522.3cd57195@canb.auug.org.au> <6ec4bc30-0526-672c-4261-3ad2cf69dd94@kernel.org> Message-ID: <726a71ce-b9e6-cec4-a4d0-ec6a8c604989@kernel.org> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 19:13:10 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.3.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6ec4bc30-0526-672c-4261-3ad2cf69dd94@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: b08248@gmail.com, Greg Kroah-Hartman , Jiri Slaby , york sun , PowerPC Mailing List , swood@redhat.com Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On 1/13/20 7:10 PM, Timur Tabi wrote: > > I would prefer that ev_byte_channel_send() is updated to access only > 'count' bytes.  If that means adding a memcpy to the > ev_byte_channel_send() itself, then so be it.  Trying to figure out how > to stuff n bytes into 4 32-bit registers is probably not worth the effort. Looks like ev_byte_channel_receive() has the same bug, but in reverse.