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.
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]> --- v2: in the original I just ignored the invalid data and went with the default but now it returns -EINVAL. diff --git a/fs/ncpfs/ioctl.c b/fs/ncpfs/ioctl.c index 79b1130..ebf45d2 100644 --- a/fs/ncpfs/ioctl.c +++ b/fs/ncpfs/ioctl.c @@ -525,7 +525,9 @@ static long __ncp_ioctl(struct inode *inode, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg switch (rqdata.cmd) { case NCP_LOCK_EX: case NCP_LOCK_SH: - if (rqdata.timeout == 0) + if (rqdata.timeout < 0) + return -EINVAL; + else if (rqdata.timeout == 0) rqdata.timeout = NCP_LOCK_DEFAULT_TIMEOUT; else if (rqdata.timeout > NCP_LOCK_MAX_TIMEOUT) rqdata.timeout = NCP_LOCK_MAX_TIMEOUT; -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
