| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 23:45:37 +0400 From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> To: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de> Cc: Willy Tarreau <wtarreau@...a.kernel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] getsockopt() early argument sanity checking On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 08:38:34PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > On Sunday 20 August 2006 18:16, Solar Designer wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 10:34:43AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > In general I don't think it makes sense to submit stuff for 2.4 > > > that isn't in 2.6. > > > > In general I agree, however right now I had the choice between > > submitting these changes for 2.4 first and not submitting them at all > > (at least for some months more). I chose the former. > > If there is really a length checking bug it shouldn't be that hard to fix it > in both. There were such length checking bugs being discovered and fixed in the past. In particular, many got fixed between 2.2.18 and 2.2.19; that was also when I added this hardening measure to -ow patches (starting with 2.2.19-ow1 released 5 years ago). Of course, any known bugs should be fixed ASAP, but to me that is not a sufficient reason to not keep a hardening measure like this. It's just a matter of opinion. Alexander - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists