[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <51B98812.80201@samsung.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:51:30 +0200
From: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma-mapping: Add BUG_ON for uninitialized dma_ops
On 6/12/2013 5:06 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 June 2013, James Bottomley wrote:
> > Really, no, it's not a good idea at all. It invites tons of patches
> > littering the code with BUG_ONs where we might possibly get a NULL
> > dereference. All it does is add extra instructions to a code path for
> > no actual benefit.
> >
> > If you can answer the question: what more information does the BUG_ON
> > give you than the NULL deref Oops would not? then it might be
> > reasonable.
>
> The question is if a user can trigger the NULL dereference intentionally,
> in which case they might get the kernel to jump into a user-provided
> buffer.
I don't any possibility for userspace to alter the ops pointer, so if you
think that BUG_ON() approach causes additional overhead then I'm fine to
remove it.
Best regards
--
Marek Szyprowski
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
--
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