linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] add a trivial patch style checker

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: <20070529131903.GA5024@one.firstfloor.org>
Date:	Tue, 29 May 2007 15:19:03 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	Joel Schopp <jschopp@...tin.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] add a trivial patch style checker

On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 01:53:24PM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 04:23:45AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Possible further checks that might make sense:
> > - panic() anywhere in drivers/* 
> 
> A driver should be allowed to panic. E.g. if it detects that due to a
> firmware or driver bug memory corruption happened. IMHO the best thing
> to do then is panic.

That is not how Linux normally operates. A BUG() doesn't panic() by
default either.

And on systems with IOMMU that is exactly the wrong thing to do.

Besides the problem is that bad drivers tend to badly abuse it
(e.g. see some particular BSD derviced SCSI drivers). We definitely
don't want any more of such code.

-Andi
-
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/