Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-94098-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240306095430.1782163-1-Ilia.Gavrilov@infotecs.ru>
 <095ce1d0f2cd6771b30ab1d73ee6aa8e8460c7c8.camel@redhat.com> <CAL+tcoBSkBG0SDnjDOzjqzpSFphrE-_Qyw_DcdcebHcRCU3xgw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL+tcoBSkBG0SDnjDOzjqzpSFphrE-_Qyw_DcdcebHcRCU3xgw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2024 15:55:45 +0100
Message-ID: <CANn89iJu49jEDS3LAmeZLEx_tfebwORnajyFBk1rx0rdbyaMfw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: fix incorrect parameter validation in the
 do_tcp_getsockopt() function
To: Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@gmail.com>
Cc: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>, Gavrilov Ilia <Ilia.Gavrilov@infotecs.ru>, 
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>, 
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, 
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, 
	"lvc-project@linuxtesting.org" <lvc-project@linuxtesting.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 12:57=E2=80=AFPM Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@gmail.c=
om> wrote:
>
> Hello Paolo,
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 7:36=E2=80=AFPM Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com> wr=
ote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2024-03-06 at 09:57 +0000, Gavrilov Ilia wrote:
> > > The 'len' variable can't be negative because all 'min_t' parameters
> > > cast to unsigned int, and then the minimum one is chosen.
> >
> > The above is incorrect, as the 'len' variable is a signed integer
>
> The 'len' variable should be converted to the non-negative value as
> this sentence:
>
> len =3D min_t(unsigned int, len, sizeof(int));
>
> See the comments of min_t(): return minimum of two values, using the
> specified type.
>
> After executing the above code, it doesn't make sense to test if 'len
> < 0', I think.

This is essentially dead (defensive ?) code.

Most compilers optimize this completely, no big deal.