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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAKMK7uGXHoUfWOGMH9EzbuZHKxLdLznUXLfq=USs6T=jkryYgg@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 10:24:15 +0200 From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch> To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>, Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...onical.com>, "open list:GENERIC INCLUDE/A..." <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, Thomas Hellstrom <thellstrom@...are.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, "linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-mm-sig@...ts.linaro.org>, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>, Colin Cross <ccross@...gle.com>, Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>, "linux-media@...r.kernel.org" <linux-media@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [REPOST PATCH 1/8] fence: dma-buf cross-device synchronization (v17) On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 12:39 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote: >>> Aside: This is a pet peeve of mine and recently I've switched to >>> rejecting all patch that have a BUG_ON, period. >> >> Please do, I have been for a few years now as well for the same reasons >> you cite. >> > > I'm actually concerned about this trend. Downgrading things to WARN_ON > can allow a security bug in the kernel to continue to exist, for > example, or make the error message disappear. > > I am wondering if the right thing here isn't to have a user (command > line?) settable policy as to how to proceed on an assert violation, > instead of hardcoding it at compile time. I should clarify: If it smells like the issue is a failure of our ioctl/syscall validation code to catch crap, BUG_ON is the right choice. And fundamentally I've had this rule since 1-2 years now, the only recent change I've done is switch my scripts from warning by default if there's a new BUG_ON to rejecting by default. Mostly because I'm lazy and let too many BUG_ONs pass through by default. Also if you add a new interface to i915 I'll make damn sure you supply a full set of nasty testcases to abuse the ioctl hard. In the end it's a tradeoff and overall I don't think I'm compromising security with my current set of rules. Also, people don't (yet) terribly care about data integrity as soon as their data has passed once through a gpu. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch -- 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