linux-kernel - Re: WARNING: at lib/idr.c:678 idr_find

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 01 Mar 2013 17:10:44 -0500
From:	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, markus@...ppelsdorf.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: WARNING: at lib/idr.c:678 idr_find_slowpath+0x97/0xc0()

On Fri, 2013-03-01 at 13:56 -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com> wrote:
> >> The WARN_ON() is just for cases where someone might be doing something
> >> crazy with the previous behavior of ignoring high bit.  Maybe I was
> >> being overly paranoid and we should just drop it from idr_find().
> >
> > Can we revert the __lock_timer patch as well then?
> 
> I don't know.  Andrew was worried about the type of timer id.  For
> inotify, it's okay as the type is always int but it's not a bad idea
> to have some form of sanitizing if the type might deviate.

It's the other way around that would be the problem, if idr returned a
type that wasn't representable by timer_t.

IMO, idr should be the sanitizing; either the value is valid and found
or not. But that's just my opinion :)

Regards,
Peter Hurley

--
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/