linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 9/9] vsprintf: Avoid confusion between invalid address and value

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: <20190212154530.wjikbevy5beg2uzc@pathway.suse.cz>
Date:   Tue, 12 Feb 2019 16:45:30 +0100
From:   Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Tobin C . Harding" <me@...in.cc>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 9/9] vsprintf: Avoid confusion between invalid address
 and value

On Fri 2019-02-08 19:27:17, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 04:23:10PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > We are able to detect invalid values handled by %p[iI] printk specifier.
> > The current error message is "invalid address". It might cause confusion
> > against "(efault)" reported by the generic valid_pointer_address() check.
> > 
> > Let's unify the style and use the more appropriate error code description
> > "(einval)".
> 
> The proper one should be "invalid address family". The proposed change
> increases confusion.

I am confused. Is there any error code for "invalid address family"?

EINVAL is standard error code used when a wrong value is passed
as a parameter. In this case, the code is not able to handle
the given address family.

IMHO, the original message "invalid address" has been even more
confusing. Oops would happen if it was invalid. In fact, the value
was invalid.

Best Regards,
Petr