Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Wed, 27 Apr 2022 10:10:06 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@kernel.org>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@linux.ibm.com>,
        device-mapper development <dm-devel@redhat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mike Snitzer <msnitzer@redhat.com>,
        Milan Broz <gmazyland@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] hex2bin: fix access beyond string end
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75Vc8kb+dpT_i93No+0_==tLuYKxu9t1Nnv1KRomRc+Ke1w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.02.2204271000020.1114@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com>
References: <alpine.LRH.2.02.2204241643030.17244@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com> <CAHp75VdHnvv6FH1BKcs8WgGF3nJpj77TsrmsQGBSpsAQU_S-bw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.02.2204260759540.2737@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com>
 <YmfxaB1j65p8dOyj@smile.fi.intel.com> <alpine.LRH.2.02.2204261128220.5129@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com> <CAHp75Vc8kb+dpT_i93No+0_==tLuYKxu9t1Nnv1KRomRc+Ke1w@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (LRH 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 27 Apr 2022, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 5:29 PM Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Apr 2022, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 08:07:44AM -0400, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 26 Apr 2022, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 10:48 PM Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> > > Still shadows error codes.
> > >
> > > > +                   return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > >                     return -EINVAL;
> >
> > What do you mean? What's wrong with "return -EINVAL"?
> 
> The actual error code is returned by hex_to_bin(). What is the point
> of shadowing it with the explicit value?

hex_to_bin returns -1 on error, hex2bin returns -EINVAL on error.

This is inconsistent and it may be fixed (after verifying all the 
hex_to_bin callers - a quick grep over the source shows that there is "if 
((k = hex_to_bin(in_str[j--])) != -1)").

But for the purpose of fixing this bug, we should preserve the behavior 
and return -1 and -EINVAL just like it was before.

Mikulas