linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] clk: check ops pointer on clock register

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: <1513627578.29566.6.camel@baylibre.com>
Date:   Mon, 18 Dec 2017 21:06:18 +0100
From:   Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@...libre.com>
To:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: check ops pointer on clock register

On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 11:03 -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 12/18, Jerome Brunet wrote:
> > Nothing really prevents a provider from (trying to) register a clock
> > without providing the clock ops structure.
> > 
> > We do check the individual fields before using them, but not the
> > structure pointer itself. This may have the usual nasty consequences when
> > the pointer is dereferenced, mostly likely when checking one the field
> > during the initialization.
> 
> Yes, that nasty consequence should be a kernel oops,

Precisely

> and the
> developer should notice that before submitting the driver for
> inclusion. 

Agreed. But people may make mistakes, which is why (at least partly) we
do checks, isn't it ?

> I don't think we really care to return an error here
> if this happens.
> 

I don't understand why we would let a oops happen when can catch the error
properly ?