linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] UBI: dereference after kfree in create

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: <1178373562.3659.144.camel@sauron>
Date:	Sat, 05 May 2007 16:59:22 +0300
From:	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@...radead.org>
To:	Satyam Sharma <satyam.sharma@...il.com>
Cc:	Florin Malita <fmalita@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] UBI: dereference after kfree in create_vtbl

On Sat, 2007-05-05 at 19:18 +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> Well, you're developing / maintaining this right now, so it's your
> call. Though I bet most people would find keeping that list_add_tail
> local to scan.c more tasteful.

I do not think so. If you are interested, try to find "UBI take 2"
patches in lkml. Look how it looked liked. It consisted of many
independent units and units could access other units _only_ via
interfaces. I would do what you say there.

Read Teo's comments - I actually now agree with them. And after I had
changed UBI i got rid of several thousands lines of code, and the code
became simpler.

So, my argument is:
1. It makes no sense to introduce one more non-static function to _just_
encapsulate list_add_tail and _just_ for one caller.
2. It is _C_, it is _kernel_, and it is OK sometimes _not_ to follow
computer since rules.

> I wish you'd commented it better than "This function returns zero in
> case of success and a negative error code in case of failure." in that
> case :-)
Agreed, I'll add more comments, thanks.

> Again, you're developing and maintaining this right now, so it's your
> call. Though it would be easier on you if you remove these exceptions
> that could be quite easily removed, actually.
I do not see any nice way to do this. If you suggest one, I will do.

-- 
Best regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Битюцкий Артём)

-
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/