linux-kernel - Re: [UPDATED PATCH] fix memory corruption from misinterpreted bad_inode

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701041127350.3661@woody.osdl.org>
Date:	Thu, 4 Jan 2007 11:30:22 -0800 (PST)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
To:	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [UPDATED PATCH] fix memory corruption from misinterpreted
 bad_inode_ops return values

On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Al Viro wrote:
> 
> How about "makes call graph analysis easier"? ;-)  In principle, I have
> no problem with force-casting, but it'd better be cast to the right
> type...

Do we really care in the kernel? We simply never use function pointer 
casts like this for anything non-trivial, so if the graph analysis just 
doesn't work for those cases, do we really even care?

The only case I can _remember_ us doing this for is literally the 
error-returning functions, where the call graph finding them really 
doesn't matter, I think.

So I don't _object_ to that reason, I just wonder whether it's really a 
big issue..

			Linus
-
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/