linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] return hidden bug

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:	Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:12:23 -0700
From:	"Ray Lee" <ray-lk@...rabbit.org>
To:	"Roel Kluin" <12o3l@...cali.nl>
Cc:	"Rik van Riel" <riel@...hat.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] return hidden bug

On 10/22/07, Roel Kluin <12o3l@...cali.nl> wrote:
> Ray Lee wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry, perhaps I poured myself a cup of stupid this morning, but
> > isn't the above patch effectively introducing a BUG where none could
> > be reached before? In other words, for the patch to have zero
> > behavioral change, wouldn't it have to remove the BUG() altogether?
>
> True, but obviously not intended. I think the intention was to expose this bug.

Arguing intentions is very dangerous. I've written code like that
where the intention is to make it simple to turn a printk into a full
bug and back and forth during development. At the end of the day, the
fact remains that you're changing behavior.

Let me turn this around. Do you have an alpha and have you tried out
your patch? If not, then I'd suggest turning it into a WARN_ON(1)
instead, as in this specific case you're risking turning what was a
working system into one that doesn't.
-
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/