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;
From:   Colin King <colin.king@canonical.com>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.com>
Cc:     kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] n_tty: check for negative and zero space return from tty_write_room
Date:   Thu, 28 Mar 2019 17:10:05 +0000
Message-Id: <20190328171005.5822-1-colin.king@canonical.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>

The return from tty_write_room could potentially be negative if
a tty write_room driver returns an error number (not that any seem
to do). Rather than just check for a zero return, also check for
a -ve return. This avoids the unsigned nr being set to a large unsigned
value on the assignment from variable space and can lead to overflowing
the buffer buf.  Better to be safe than assume all write_room
implementations in tty drivers are going to do the right thing.

Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
---
 drivers/tty/n_tty.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/tty/n_tty.c b/drivers/tty/n_tty.c
index 9cdb0fa3c4bf..66630787fbf9 100644
--- a/drivers/tty/n_tty.c
+++ b/drivers/tty/n_tty.c
@@ -550,7 +550,7 @@ static ssize_t process_output_block(struct tty_struct *tty,
 	mutex_lock(&ldata->output_lock);
 
 	space = tty_write_room(tty);
-	if (!space) {
+	if (space <= 0) {
 		mutex_unlock(&ldata->output_lock);
 		return 0;
 	}
-- 
2.20.1