crypto: Fix test in get_prng_bytes()

PATCH In review Roel Kluin 3 participants 7 messages Oct 12, 2009 – Oct 27, 2009 Crypto API

lore

Share & tools

lore

Roel Kluin

author

2009-10-12 13:00 UTC #0 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 crypto: Fix test in get_prng_bytes()

size_t nbytes cannot be less than 0.

Signed-off-by Roel Kluin <[email protected]>

---
Or should this test be removed?

crypto/ansi_cprng.c +1 -1

index 3aa6e38..9162456 100644
@@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ static int get_prng_bytes(char *buf, size_t nbytes, struct prng_context *ctx)
 	int err;
 
 
-	if (nbytes < 0)
+	if ((ssize_t)nbytes < 0)
 		return -EINVAL;
 
 	spin_lock_bh(&ctx->prng_lock);

Neil Horman

Acked-by on v1 1/1

2009-10-12 13:52 UTC #1 lore raw

Quoted 11 lines · Roel Kluin

size_t nbytes cannot be less than 0.
Signed-off-by Roel Kluin <[email protected]>
---
Or should this test be removed?
crypto/ansi_cprng.c +0 -0
index 3aa6e38..9162456 100644

crypto/ansi_cprng.c static int get_prng_bytes(char *buf, size_t nbytes, struct prng_context *ctx) · line 198

Quoted 8 lines

crypto/ansi_cprng.c +1 -1

@@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ static int get_prng_bytes(char *buf, size_t nbytes, struct prng_context *ctx)
 	int err;
 
 
-	if (nbytes < 0)
+	if ((ssize_t)nbytes < 0)
 		return -EINVAL;
 
 	spin_lock_bh(&ctx->prng_lock);

No, you're quite right, its a harmless, but unneeded check. Herbert, could you pull this into cryptodev please? Thank you.

Thanks for the patch Roel.

Acked-by Neil Horman <[email protected]>

Neil

Quoted 5 lines

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Herbert Xu

maintainer

2009-10-12 14:08 UTC #2 lore raw

On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 09:51:42AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
.

Quoted 10 lines

Or should this test be removed?

crypto/ansi_cprng.c +0 -0

index 3aa6e38..9162456 100644
@@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ static int get_prng_bytes(char *buf, size_t nbytes, struct prng_context *ctx)
 	int err;

Quoted 7 lines

crypto/ansi_cprng.c static int get_prng_bytes(char *buf, size_t nbytes, struct prng_context *ctx) · line 198
Quoted 5 lines
crypto/ansi_cprng.c +1 -1
-	if (nbytes < 0)
+	if ((ssize_t)nbytes < 0)
 		return -EINVAL;
 
 	spin_lock_bh(&ctx->prng_lock);
No, you're quite right, its a harmless, but unneeded check. Herbert, could you pull this into cryptodev please? Thank you.

Hmm, if it's unneeded why don't we just kill it instead?

Thanks,

Signature · 4 lines

Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[email protected]>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt

Roel Kluin

author Acked-by Neil Horman

2009-10-12 14:13 UTC #3 lore raw

Op 12-10-09 16:07, Herbert Xu schreef:

Quoted 16 lines · Neil Horman

Quoted 14 lines

Or should this test be removed?

crypto/ansi_cprng.c +1 -1

index 3aa6e38..9162456 100644
@@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ static int get_prng_bytes(char *buf, size_t nbytes, struct prng_context *ctx)
 	int err;
 
 
-	if (nbytes < 0)
+	if ((ssize_t)nbytes < 0)
 		return -EINVAL;

Quoted 5 lines

Quoted 3 lines
crypto/ansi_cprng.c static int get_prng_bytes(char *buf, size_t nbytes, struct prng_context *ctx) · line 198
Quoted 1 line
crypto/ansi_cprng.c +0 -0
 	spin_lock_bh(&ctx->prng_lock);
No, you're quite right, its a harmless, but unneeded check. Herbert, could you pull this into cryptodev please? Thank you.
Hmm, if it's unneeded why don't we just kill it instead?

In that case:
-------------------------->8------------------8<------------------------- size_t nbytes cannot be less than 0 and the test was redundant.

Acked-by Neil Horman <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by Roel Kluin <[email protected]>

---

crypto/ansi_cprng.c +0 -2

index 3aa6e38..47995ae 100644
@@ -192,9 +192,6 @@ static int get_prng_bytes(char *buf, size_t nbytes, struct prng_context *ctx)
 	int err;
 
 
-	if (nbytes < 0)
-		return -EINVAL;

Neil Horman

Acked-by

2009-10-12 14:29 UTC #4 lore raw

Quoted 36 lines · Roel Kluin

Op 12-10-09 16:07, Herbert Xu schreef:
Quoted 16 lines · Neil Horman
.
Quoted 14 lines
Quoted 14 lines
Or should this test be removed?
crypto/ansi_cprng.c +1 -1
index 3aa6e38..9162456 100644
@@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ static int get_prng_bytes(char *buf, size_t nbytes, struct prng_context *ctx)
 	int err;
 
 
-	if (nbytes < 0)
+	if ((ssize_t)nbytes < 0)
 		return -EINVAL;
 
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 3 lines
crypto/ansi_cprng.c static int get_prng_bytes(char *buf, size_t nbytes, struct prng_context *ctx) · line 198
Quoted 1 line
crypto/ansi_cprng.c +0 -0
 	spin_lock_bh(&ctx->prng_lock);
No, you're quite right, its a harmless, but unneeded check. Herbert, could you pull this into cryptodev please? Thank you.
Hmm, if it's unneeded why don't we just kill it instead?
In that case:
-------------------------->8------------------8<------------------------- size_t nbytes cannot be less than 0 and the test was redundant.
Acked-by Neil Horman <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by Roel Kluin <[email protected]>
---
crypto/ansi_cprng.c +0 -0
index 3aa6e38..47995ae 100644

crypto/ansi_cprng.c static int get_prng_bytes(char *buf, size_t nbytes, struct prng_context *ctx) · line 197

Quoted 9 lines

crypto/ansi_cprng.c +0 -3

@@ -192,9 +192,6 @@ static int get_prng_bytes(char *buf, size_t nbytes, struct prng_context *ctx)
 	int err;
 
 
-	if (nbytes < 0)
-		return -EINVAL;
-
 	spin_lock_bh(&ctx->prng_lock);
 
 	err = -EINVAL;

There you go, yes :)

Acked-by Neil Horman <[email protected]>

Neil

Herbert Xu

maintainer

2009-10-27 10:52 UTC #5 lore raw

Quoted 2 lines · Neil Horman

Acked-by Neil Horman <[email protected]>

Patch applied to cryptodev. Thanks!

Signature · 4 lines

Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[email protected]>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt

Neil Horman

2009-10-12 14:29 UTC #6 lore raw

In reply to Herbert Xu

Quoted 16 lines · Herbert Xu

On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 09:51:42AM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
.
Quoted 14 lines
Quoted 14 lines
Or should this test be removed?
crypto/ansi_cprng.c +1 -1
index 3aa6e38..9162456 100644
@@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ static int get_prng_bytes(char *buf, size_t nbytes, struct prng_context *ctx)
 	int err;
 
 
-	if (nbytes < 0)
+	if ((ssize_t)nbytes < 0)
 		return -EINVAL;
 

Quoted 6 lines

Quoted 3 lines
crypto/ansi_cprng.c static int get_prng_bytes(char *buf, size_t nbytes, struct prng_context *ctx) · line 198
Quoted 1 line
crypto/ansi_cprng.c +0 -0
 	spin_lock_bh(&ctx->prng_lock);
No, you're quite right, its a harmless, but unneeded check. Herbert, could you pull this into cryptodev please? Thank you.
Hmm, if it's unneeded why don't we just kill it instead?

Sorry, thats what I mean't to say. Can you kill it, or do you want a patch for it?
Neil

Quoted 7 lines

Thanks,

Signature · 4 lines

Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[email protected]>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt