| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:52:00 +0200 From: Roel Kluin <12o3l@...cali.nl> To: Ray Lee <ray-lk@...rabbit.org> CC: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] return hidden bug 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. No, I haven't and, I will change it, but it's included with my other changes. see the reply that I'll write shortly for. [PATCH retry] return hidden bug and unlock bugs. Roel - 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists