linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/7] genalloc: selftest

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <45087800-218a-7ff5-22c0-d0a5bfea5001@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 26 Feb 2018 09:46:43 -0800
From:   J Freyensee <why2jjj.linux@...il.com>
To:     Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>, david@...morbit.com,
        willy@...radead.org, keescook@...omium.org, mhocko@...nel.org
Cc:     labbott@...hat.com, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] genalloc: selftest



On 2/26/18 4:11 AM, Igor Stoppa wrote:
>
> On 24/02/18 00:42, J Freyensee wrote:
>>> +	locations[action->location] = gen_pool_alloc(pool, action->size);
>>> +	BUG_ON(!locations[action->location]);
>> Again, I'd think it through if you really want to use BUG_ON() or not:
>>
>> https://lwn.net/Articles/13183/
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/10/4/1
> Is it acceptable to display only a WARNing, in case of risking damaging
> a mounted filesystem?

That's a good question.  Based upon those articles, 'yes'.  But it seems 
like a 'darned-if-you-do, darned-if-you-don't' question as couldn't you 
also corrupt a mounted filesystem by crashing the kernel, yes/no?

If you really want a system crash, maybe just do a panic() like 
filesystems also use?
>
> --
> igor