On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 05:10:05PM +0000, Colin King wrote:
> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> The return from tty_write_room could potentially be negative if
> a tty write_room driver returns an error number (not that any seem
> to do). Rather than just check for a zero return, also check for
> a -ve return. This avoids the unsigned nr being set to a large unsigned
> value on the assignment from variable space and can lead to overflowing
> the buffer buf. Better to be safe than assume all write_room
> implementations in tty drivers are going to do the right thing.
>
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/tty/n_tty.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/tty/n_tty.c b/drivers/tty/n_tty.c
> index 9cdb0fa3c4bf..66630787fbf9 100644
> --- a/drivers/tty/n_tty.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/n_tty.c
> @@ -550,7 +550,7 @@ static ssize_t process_output_block(struct tty_struct *tty,
> mutex_lock(&ldata->output_lock);
>
> space = tty_write_room(tty);
> - if (!space) {
> + if (space <= 0) {
> mutex_unlock(&ldata->output_lock);
> return 0;
Instead of zero we should probably return "space" to preserve the error
code.
regards,
dan carpenter
