linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] xen/setup: add paranoid index check and warning

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:	Tue, 14 Oct 2014 07:04:22 -0700
From:	Martin Kelly <martin@...tingkelly.com>
To:	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
	xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
CC:	konrad.wilk@...cle.com, boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com,
	tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
	Martin Kelly <martkell@...zon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen/setup: add paranoid index check and warning

On 10/14/2014 02:22 AM, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 14/10/14 02:19, Martin Kelly wrote:
>> In a call to set_phys_range_identity, i-1 is used without checking that
>> i is non-zero. Although unlikely, a bug in the code before it could
>> cause the value to be 0, leading to erroneous behavior. This patch adds
>> a check against 0 value and a corresponding warning.
> 
> This can only happen if the toolstack supplies a memory map with zero
> entries.  I could see justification for adding a panic at the top of
> this function in this case, but I can't see the usefulness of this warning.
> 

Yes, a panic is probably appropriate. What do you think about the relative merits of panicing in the callers vs. in the sanitize_e820_map function itself (thus to avoid a bunch of similar error checks in the callers)?
--
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/