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  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]
Date:   Tue, 25 Sep 2018 11:15:05 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Alan Stern <>
To:     Vladis Dronov <>
cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,
        Oliver Neukum <>,
        Hans de Goede <>,
        <>, <>,
        <>, stable <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: usbfs: fix crash in check_ctrlrecip()->usb_find_alt_setting()

On Tue, 25 Sep 2018, Vladis Dronov wrote:

> > What reason is there for having two different fixes for the same bug?
> > This one isn't going to get into any mainline trees that don't already
> > have c9a4cb204e9e.
> I believe this is the right thing to do, so usb_find_alt_setting()
> is not called with a known-bad argument.
> Honestly, I would change "if (!config)" in usb_find_alt_setting() to
> "BUG_ON(!config)" so we know when its callers do smth wrong and go

(You'll be lucky if Linus doesn't see that.  He yells at anybody who
suggests adding BUG_ON for anything that doesn't completely crash the
kernel.  The basic problem is that "BUG_ON" is not a good name: That
routine doesn't really report bugs; instead it brings everything to a
halt in situations where the kernel is unable to proceed.  In practice 
this tends to make actual debugging more difficult.)

> fix callers. Unfortunately, I understand this hardly will be accepted.

How is this different from calling kfree() with a NULL argument?

Alan Stern

Powered by blists - more mailing lists