linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/6] lib/rhashtable: convert param sanitations to WARN

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

Date:   Mon, 28 May 2018 08:51:12 -0700
From:   Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To:     Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        tgraf@...g.ch, manfred@...orfullife.com,
        guillaume.knispel@...ersonicimagine.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] lib/rhashtable: convert param sanitations to WARN_ON

On Mon, 28 May 2018, Herbert Xu wrote:

>On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 06:12:09AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>>
>> Well, I don't really _want_ them; nor does the ipc code which already
>> does a WARN_ON() (but that goes away in future patches). What I want
>> is to get rid of the return path. So I don't really care if we convert
>> them to WARN or remove them altogether. Would you be happy with the
>> later?
>
>It has nothing to do with the error return path.  Assuming you
>remove the allocation failure path, then this error path can never
>trigger for *your* use-case. 

Why would this be triggered by any use case if the developer setup the
params correctly...? I don't see the point of not getting rid of the
EINVAL or wrapping around warning around it. Ultimately it would be
good to just have rhashtable_init() return void.