The patch titled
Subject: ncpfs: don't allow negative timeouts
has been removed from the -mm tree. Its filename was
ncpfs-dont-allow-negative-timeouts.patch
This patch was dropped because it was merged into mainline or a subsystem tree
------------------------------------------------------
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: ncpfs: don't allow negative timeouts
This code causes a static checker warning because it's a user controlled
variable where we cap the upper bound but not the lower bound. Let's
return an -EINVAL for negative timeouts.
[akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: remove unneeded `else']
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: Petr Vandrovec <petr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/ncpfs/ioctl.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff -puN fs/ncpfs/ioctl.c~ncpfs-dont-allow-negative-timeouts fs/ncpfs/ioctl.c
--- a/fs/ncpfs/ioctl.c~ncpfs-dont-allow-negative-timeouts
+++ a/fs/ncpfs/ioctl.c
@@ -525,6 +525,8 @@ static long __ncp_ioctl(struct inode *in
switch (rqdata.cmd) {
case NCP_LOCK_EX:
case NCP_LOCK_SH:
+ if (rqdata.timeout < 0)
+ return -EINVAL;
if (rqdata.timeout == 0)
rqdata.timeout = NCP_LOCK_DEFAULT_TIMEOUT;
else if (rqdata.timeout > NCP_LOCK_MAX_TIMEOUT)
_
Patches currently in -mm which might be from dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx are
mm-add-tracepoint-for-scanning-pages-fix.patch
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe mm-commits" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
