On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 02:43:02PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 06:22:41PM +0800, Jiapeng Chong wrote: > > cur_state and new_state are enums and when GCC considers > > them as unsigned, the conditions are never met. > > But doesn't gcc consider enums to be 'int' as the standard requires? Ohh, I missed that. > > This change looks really sketchy to me, cur_state and new_state are > both userspace controlled data. We should not make assumptions about > the underlying signedness of an enum when validating user data. I still think that the right change should be in ib_uverbs_ex_modify_wq(), so both mlx4 and mlx5 will be protected. Thanks > > Jason
