linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] libata-eh: Use switch() instead of sparse array for protocol strings

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:   Mon, 9 Jan 2017 15:31:07 -0500
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        "linux-ide@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libata-eh: Use switch() instead of sparse array for
 protocol strings

Hello,

On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 09:28:12PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > So, to avoid that, we can just kmalloc and kfree the buffer, but it
> > seems like a silly complication to work around bugs in some
> > bootloaders.  There are many places in kernel where we're liberal
> > about __initdata which is great.  I'm not sure complicating all those
> > places for a broken bootloader is a good idea.
> 
> Sure. We cannot avoid that kernels (esp. multiplatform) keep on growing.
> 
> But when I see a new 4KiB-sized buffer, i'm always suspicious...
> A few years ago, I caught someone miscalculating shifts, leading
> to a static buffer that was 256 times larger than intended ;-)

Oh, sure, things like the protocol string table are just stupid and
it's great that you caught it.  I just don't think it makes sense to
scrutinize bss __initdata.  It's not in kernel image and goes away
once the kernel boots.  It's okay to a bit liberal with them for the
sake of simplicity.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun