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:   Tue, 22 Oct 2019 16:12:16 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To:     Chuhong Yuan <hslester96@gmail.com>
Cc:     Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IB/uverbs: Add a check for uverbs_attr_get
Message-ID: <20191022191216.GE23952@ziepe.ca>
References: <20191018081533.8544-1-hslester96@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191018081533.8544-1-hslester96@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 04:15:34PM +0800, Chuhong Yuan wrote:
> Only uverbs_copy_to_struct_or_zero in uverbs_ioctl.c does not have a
> check for uverbs_attr_get.
> Although its usage in uverbs_response has a check for attr's validity,
> UVERBS_HANDLER does not.
> Therefore, it is better to add a check like other functions in
> uverbs_ioctl.c.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chuhong Yuan <hslester96@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/infiniband/core/uverbs_ioctl.c | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

The call in uverbs_ioctl.c is safe as well, that code path checks that
the attribute exists.

Still, it make sense that this check should be present, so applied to
for-next with a clearer commit message

Thanks,
Jason