[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFxPvLGcs0bfhhYiUe0F2Ur8Lstz889or2ZsGYPir1K0_A@mail.gmail.com>
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