linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.21-rc4-mm1

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:	Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:25:57 +0200
From:	"Kay Sievers" <kay.sievers@...y.org>
To:	"Eric Rannaud" <eric.rannaud@...il.com>
Cc:	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Cornelia Huck" <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
	"Larry Finger" <larry.finger@...inger.net>,
	"Matt Mackall" <mpm@...enic.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
	"Monakhov Dmitriy" <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>
Subject: Re: 2.6.21-rc4-mm1

On 3/26/07, Eric Rannaud <eric.rannaud@...il.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 01:22:32AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:09:49 +0200 Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com> wrote:
> > > > If so, do you think I should labour on with
> > > > uevent-improve-error-checking-and-handling.patch plus your fix, or should I
> > > > drop the lot?  (I'm inclined toward the latter, but I'm still not
> > > > sure which patch(es) need to be dropped).
> > >
> > > This depends on what semantics uevent returning an error code should
> > > have. The firmware code was using it to suppress uevents, but
> > > uevent_suppress is a better idea now. So if we want uevent returning !=
> > > 0 to imply "something really bad happened", all uevent functions have
> > > to be audited and those that work like firmware_uevent have to be
> > > converted to uevent_suppress. This would be cleaner, but I'm not sure
> > > it's worth the work.
> >
> > We're generally struggling to stay alive amongst all the bugs at present -
> > I'll drop all those patches.
>
> My mistake, I wrote the guilty patch
> uevent-improve-error-checking-and-handling.patch assuming it was safe to
> treat the return value as an error code, since several uevent functions
> returns things like -ENOMEM.
>
> Should I rework the patch as Cornelia suggests and resubmit later, when
> things have settled down a little?

I don't see any point in deregistering a kernel device, if the event
to userspace goes wrong, or a subsytem returns a non-zero value in the
filter.

Checking the uevent return value, will not prevent any malfunction,
usually this kind of "error handling" just prevents bringing up a
whole subsystem, or booting-up a box, because the needed device does
not exist at all.

Thanks,
Kay
-
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/