From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932900Ab1JZNUo (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 26 Oct 2011 09:20:44 -0400
Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:39900 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1754926Ab1JZNUn (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 26 Oct 2011 09:20:43 -0400
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:20:42 +0200
Message-ID: <s5hd3djsxcl.wl%tiwai@suse.de>
From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
To: Alexander Stein <alexander.stein@systec-electronic.com>
Cc: Jaroslav Kysela <perex@perex.cz>, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hda_hwdep: Fix possible buffer overflow
In-Reply-To: <201110261515.25189.alexander.stein@systec-electronic.com>
References: <1319615292-27396-1-git-send-email-alexander.stein@systec-electronic.com>
	<s5hipnbsyd8.wl%tiwai@suse.de>
	<201110261515.25189.alexander.stein@systec-electronic.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.6 (Almost Unreal) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka)
 FLIM/1.14.9 (=?UTF-8?B?R29qxY0=?=) APEL/10.7 Emacs/23.3
 (x86_64-suse-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

At Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:15:24 +0200,
Alexander Stein wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> On Wednesday 26 October 2011 14:58:43 Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > At Wed, 26 Oct 2011 09:48:12 +0200,
> > 
> > Alexander Stein wrote:
> > > If a line in the firmware file is larger than the given buffer size (and
> > > so the firmware file size), size is set to a value larger than the actual
> > > buffer size. This results in an overflow in the buffer passed.
> > > Fix this by copying only up to 127 chars per line.
> > 
> > Actually this check should have been
> > 
> > 	if (size > fw->size)
> > 		size = fw->size;
> > 
> > Otherwise it doesn't make sense.
> > If the change is OK, could you resend the patch with it?
> 
> IMO this check isn't even needed. This case should be catched by this check
> 
>    for (len = 0; len < fw->size; len++) {
> 
> already.
> Opinions?

Right, it's superfluous.  Let's get rid of it.


Takashi