| 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: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1410211043150.5308@nanos> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 10:56:03 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> To: Martin Kelly <martin@...tingkelly.com> cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, rientjes@...gle.com, david.vrabel@...rix.com, Martin Kelly <martkell@...zon.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86, e820: panic on sanitizing invalid memory map On Mon, 20 Oct 2014, Martin Kelly wrote: > sanitize_e820_map returns two possible values: > -1: Returned when either the provided memory map has length 1 (ok) or > when the provided memory map is invalid (not ok). > 0: Returned when the memory map was correctly sanitized. > > In addition, most code ignores the returned value, and none actually > handles it (except possibly by panicking). There are reasons WHY some code does ignore it. > This patch changes the behavior so that sanitize_e820_map is a void > function. When the provided memory map has length 1 or it is sanitized > (both ok cases), it returns nothing. If the provided memory map is > invalid, then it panics. So you break wilfully default_machine_specific_memory_setup() and probably some other places. Are you sure about that? Thanks, tglx -- 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