linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] params: Fix an overflow in param_attr

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]

Message-ID: <20170928084821.mh6nlxsrdfojmx4h@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 Sep 2017 10:48:21 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] params: Fix an overflow in param_attr_show


* Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de> wrote:

> > STANDARD_PARAM_DEF(byte,	unsigned char,		"%hhu\n",	kstrtou8);
> > STANDARD_PARAM_DEF(short,	short,			"%hi\n",	kstrtos16);
> > STANDARD_PARAM_DEF(ushort,	unsigned short,		"%hu\n",	kstrtou16);
> > STANDARD_PARAM_DEF(int,	int,			"%i\n",		kstrtoint);
> > STANDARD_PARAM_DEF(uint,	unsigned int,		"%u\n",		kstrtouint);
> > STANDARD_PARAM_DEF(long,	long,			"%li\n",	kstrtol);
> > STANDARD_PARAM_DEF(ulong,	unsigned long,		"%lu\n",	kstrtoul);
> > STANDARD_PARAM_DEF(ullong,	unsigned long long,	"%llu\n",	kstrtoull);
> 
> Sure it is possible to add a new parameter type. But why would the
> person adding it forget the \n?

Because they are human? I certainly forgot similar details when writing code, 
numerous times, and making constructs more robust against mistakes is half of
my job as a maintainer. This is kernel design 101.

> I can't imagine that someone adding a
> new type would type the new line of code character by character. Such an
> operation is calling for copy, paste and edit, at which point there is
> no reason why the \n would be actively deleted. Or this is sabotage,
> really ;-)

WTF? Really, I've given you useful feedback in the last couple of days, and my 
suggestions were generally correct and on topic, still your replies were 
passive-aggressive, obtuse and generally foul tempered in every single case.

Just the latest example:

> Aligning parameters vertically as you suggest above is probably a good
> idea for overall readability anyway, so I can change my patch to do
> that, as I am modifying these lines anyway. It is pretty much
> independent from the fix per se, but if it makes you happy...

I made a routine, technically valid suggestion that I made countless other
kernel developers in the past who sent me code with such a pattern, and
I do not appreciate your condescending tone, it's not about 'making me happy'.

You need to handle criticism of your patches properly and constructively.

Thanks,

	Ingo