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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 15:31:52 -0800 From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> Cc: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...hat.com>, Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>, Xiaolong Ye <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, LKP <lkp@...org> Subject: Re: d7be102f29 ("cfg80211: initialize regulatory keys/database later"): kernel BUG at crypto/asymmetric_keys/public_key.c:80! On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 3:25 PM, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote: > > This function has a list of requisite parameters for the caller: .. and so what? When you call "free()", that has a requisite parameter: the data to free. If you don't supply it, we should BUG_ON(), right? No. Instead we do the sane thing and just do if (unlikely(ZERO_OR_NULL_PTR(x))) return; and it's all good. > If you fail to obtain any one of these parameters, you can't use this function > and you should have errored out before calling this function. Again, what is the *advantage* of being a complete ass-wipe and saying "f*ck you", when it's less code to just say "that didn't work"? Because one of those BUG_ON's clearly did happen. So exactly what is your excuse for killing the machine instead of just saying "yeah, can't validate that"? Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists