ncpfs: don't allow negative timeouts

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. If someone passes us a negative timeout then I guess lets set it to the default.

Signed-off-by Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>

fs/ncpfs/ioctl.c +1 -1

index 79b1130..c07498a 100644
@@ -525,7 +525,7 @@ 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)
 							rqdata.timeout = NCP_LOCK_DEFAULT_TIMEOUT;
 						else if (rqdata.timeout > NCP_LOCK_MAX_TIMEOUT)
 							rqdata.timeout = NCP_LOCK_MAX_TIMEOUT;

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]>

---
v2: in the original I just ignored the invalid data and went with the
default but now it returns -EINVAL.

fs/ncpfs/ioctl.c +3 -1

index 79b1130..ebf45d2 100644
@@ -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;