On 3/19/20 10:07 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 08:07:55PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> On 3/19/20 3:46 PM, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 06:14:57PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>>>> + * It is possible, though unlikely, that the key
>>>> + * changes in between the up_read->down_read period.
>>>> + * If the key becomes longer, we will have to
>>>> + * allocate a larger buffer and redo the key read
>>>> + * again.
>>>> + */
>>>> + if (!tmpbuf || unlikely(ret > tmpbuflen)) {
>>> Shouldn't you check that tmpbuflen stays below buflen (why else
>>> you had made copy of buflen otherwise)?
>> The check above this thunk:
>>
>> if ((ret > 0) && (ret <= buflen)) {
>>
>> will make sure that ret will not be larger than buflen. So tmpbuflen
>> will never be bigger than buflen.
> Ah right, of course, thanks.
>
> What would go wrong if the condition was instead
> ((ret > 0) && (ret <= tmpbuflen))?
That if statement is a check to see if the actual key length is longer
than the user-supplied buffer (buflen). If that is the case, it will
just return the expected length without storing anything into the user
buffer. For the case that buflen >= ret > tmpbuflen, the revised check
above will incorrectly skip the storing step causing the caller to
incorrectly think the key is there in the buffer.
Maybe I should clarify that a bit more in the comment.
Cheers,
Longman
