netdev - Re: [PATCH net] packet: tpacket_v3: do not trigger bug() on wrong header status

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Thu, 09 May 2013 20:32:52 +0200
From:	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>
To:	chetan loke <loke.chetan@...il.com>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jakub Zawadzki <darkjames-ws@...kjames.pl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] packet: tpacket_v3: do not trigger bug() on wrong
 header status

On 05/09/2013 08:11 PM, chetan loke wrote:
> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com> wrote:
[..]
> Normally people(sane code) will look for the return value from a
> syscall. mmap is special because there's no syscall to run once you
> mmap/setup the rings. Since there's no syscall there's no return
> value. That's why we try to detect it at run-time and try to WARN the
> user if we can.

Well, I'm aware of all the internals and the problem statement. No need
for further explanations.

I also don't want to have endless, tiring discussions on netdev about a
WARN_ON_ONCE statement either.

I still don't like it for the reasons I stated ;-) but if you want to send
a patch, I'm not going to stand in the way.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html