linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v5 20/20] net: WireGuard secure network tunnel

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:   Wed, 19 Sep 2018 14:38:53 +0200
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 20/20] net: WireGuard secure network tunnel

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 04:04:01AM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 1:34 AM Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> wrote:
> > I see this BUG_ON() is still here. It really needs to be removed. It
> > does not look like you need to crash the kernel here. Can you add in a
> > test of len >= 128, do a WARN and then return. I think you then leak
> > some memory, but i would much prefer that to a crashed machine.
> 
> Sure, I'll change it to that.

Great, thanks. I noticed there is at least one more BUG()
statements. It would be good to remove them all. BUG() should only be
used when something bad has already happened and we want to minimise
the damage by killing the machine immediately.

    Andrew