Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 29 Nov 2018 18:26:37 -0800
From:   Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Anton Vorontsov <anton@enomsg.org>,
        Colin Cross <ccross@android.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] pstore: Do not use crash buffer for decompression
Message-ID: <20181130022637.GA105443@google.com>
References: <20181101235200.28584-1-keescook@chromium.org>
 <20181101235200.28584-3-keescook@chromium.org>
 <20181102182454.GB14942@google.com>
 <CAGXu5jKdO8icx63YDkqDsYP4_pNxRe5zUiVUg2+0mhbHj10zTg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGXu5jJdPz70kHUmTxOEo3Kp20HCOpGEX3_ECqN6TV3qBwxjEA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5jJdPz70kHUmTxOEo3Kp20HCOpGEX3_ECqN6TV3qBwxjEA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 02:06:39PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 11:56 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 04:51:54PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > >> +     workspace = kmalloc(unzipped_len + record->ecc_notice_size,
> > >
> > > Should tihs be unzipped_len + record->ecc_notice_size + 1. The extra byte
> > > being for the NULL character of the ecc notice?
> > >
> > > This occurred to me when I saw the + 1 in ram.c. It could be better to just
> > > abstract the size as a macro.
> >
> > Ooh, yes, good catch. I'll get this fixed.
> 
> I spent more time looking at this, and it seems that only the initial
> creation of this string needs the +1, since all other operations are
> byte-based not NUL-terminated string based. It's a big odd, and I
> might try to clean it up differently, but as it stands, this is okay.
> (See inode.c which doesn't include the trailing NUL byte.)

Ok. Yes it does seem a bit inconsistent but I agree its not an issue for this
particular patch. Sorry to waste your time, thanks!

 - Joel