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=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham 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 6A127C282CB for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 15:45:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 377B3217F9 for ; Tue, 5 Feb 2019 15:45:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="aQgL++7E" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730071AbfBEPph (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Feb 2019 10:45:37 -0500 Received: from mail-pg1-f194.google.com ([209.85.215.194]:41040 "EHLO mail-pg1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728740AbfBEPph (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Feb 2019 10:45:37 -0500 Received: by mail-pg1-f194.google.com with SMTP id m1so1536546pgq.8; Tue, 05 Feb 2019 07:45:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=OEco+pDVHYSJzSZvnAlXaj2YOqIbT2SVEKF9v3Ks658=; b=aQgL++7ElUNx+pEPr/9KjBGZlK52ssqaAKOor9UIGzVrNhmXgI/9iYriqWjFRgldlc nswOCD4RJU8ojKXYKqpzOpmKlBEGMEQZqeFDuzvy5bxQmENU0eHpvjtkhzX2K8agX7Ns kUNi1MSXrb0xIxILAzhpj9ILMRwIA22CAXfZpGh6r7IEhDfbN68FOMjG3W6QwRnGgn7f f6A618cJwBaSdKHimrxcG/bXMbXBoNZaTCOCW5TR927cvMIkOJe8JbuLVJ9/BF9CsV99 8oayWxHcqUB3GUMzoqnRf+h57wXWlViGMSu2ZjQlg7ma1QBO9EdpZptFUgM3/EPlifrt lLkg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=OEco+pDVHYSJzSZvnAlXaj2YOqIbT2SVEKF9v3Ks658=; b=URHFPFQBNkD1ySeC8Zk5mdP0LeIMrcGjvzzX4kviIgOLvRj4LaXHN5dh/0YKGwNida GUk82fDdkivuEexYCluqvZ6SZKIr/COmgwuqf9JEU5YJM3VLPjKY4epl2n0u6NMb5b1b 1QQAxzMDKlzEWRcfV9gRp3wBzmKvvFSlBfjTFtH3ZAGflHdJ1zc5Gk8ETSo4qdJoucFR PkVDwXBeJsl9ESvGr40Lk9HpKvhvcoQlYsno2DN5wDlX6uZULXAhStsgtMDX+yIkZWei UMPKDQzbKMN+cyoYWO9rvxkCrGeMUm57Uez3xvuBR8xngov0DrhMhyRgcKuhVZn7P0tQ TC1w== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAublmCHQNXBWQL82Z4bIu553RegC8GnIGncqYF6Baqo8Vh6HtX7X t2Y+xEZVnq4ii/8h/2qXT6UCARlj0+4+0VCs6CADkVdb X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3Ia1/Cg/PckbCVIzudoeo42vzIi25lyEobA1+hMLV006Ivg7neymX797GyraC3WvsmclY4wNrmIPnbBpEXrOtos= X-Received: by 2002:a62:c711:: with SMTP id w17mr5690320pfg.50.1549381536427; Tue, 05 Feb 2019 07:45:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190203190423.lmsix5la6ioyawwi@mok.nu> In-Reply-To: <20190203190423.lmsix5la6ioyawwi@mok.nu> From: Andy Shevchenko Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 17:45:25 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] platform/x86: wmi: add WMI support to MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE() To: Mattias Jacobsson <2pi@mok.nu> Cc: Masahiro Yamada , michal.lkml@markovi.net, Darren Hart , Andy Shevchenko , =?UTF-8?Q?Pali_Roh=C3=A1r?= , Platform Driver , Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 9:04 PM Mattias Jacobsson <2pi@mok.nu> wrote: > On 2019-01-30, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 5:15 PM Mattias Jacobsson <2pi@mok.nu> wrote: > > > + if (len < 0 || len >= 500) { > > > > Would it even possible to get a negative number here? > > Same for any other number than slightly bigger than 36. > > snprintf returns a negative number on error. BTW AFAIU the code from > file2alias.c gets dynamically linked against a libc. OK. > > So, what about simple > > > > { > > DEF_FIELD_ADDR(...); > > size_t len; > > > > len = strlen(*guid_string); > > if (len != ...) { > > ... > > } > > sprintf(...); > > return 1; > > } > > > > ? > > Then we are missing the check that we are within the bounds of alias I don't see how. By checking a length of string we be sure, that the result would have a non-arbitrary length. > as well as the negative code from s*printf(). snprintf() does this nicely > for us. This one I agree with, means in the above example we may do return sprintf(...); if callers recognize just a sign, or len = sprintf(...); if (len < 0) return len; // -1? 0? return 1; otherwise. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko