[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACT4Y+Yzv-wiN4JwEm_fjN0XVoq_QfnsskJ2Mks9+7s11KnyGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 11:19:33 +0100
From: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dledford@...hat.com, sean.hefty@...el.com,
Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>, leon@...nel.org,
linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] infiniband: remove WARN that is not kernel bug
On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 7:57 PM, Jason Gunthorpe
<jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 09:22:42PM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 12:24:37 +0100, Dmitry Vyukov said:
>> > WARNINGs mean kernel bugs.
>> > The one in ucma_write() points to user programming error
>> > or a malicious attempt. This is not a kernel bug, remove it.
>>
>> > - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!ib_safe_file_access(filp)))
>> > + if (!ib_safe_file_access(filp))
>> > return -EACCES;
>>
>> In that case, wouldn't this be better?
>>
>> if (!ib_safe_file_access(filp)) {
>> printk_once("Process %d (%s) tried to do something hinky", pid, comm);
>> return _EACCESS;
>> }
>>
>> so the sysadmin becomes aware of the malicious attempt?
>
> Yes please
Mailed v2
Powered by blists - more mailing lists