linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] i2c: i801: avoid panic if ioreamp fails

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: <20190510141833.2cb3d108@endymion>
Date:   Fri, 10 May 2019 14:18:33 +0200
From:   Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
To:     Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
Cc:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
        <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>, Hulk Robot <hulkci@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] i2c: i801: avoid panic if ioreamp fails

On Fri, 10 May 2019 17:35:46 +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
> On 2019/5/10 16:09, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > We don't need this anyway. The comment says it can't fail, so why
> > bother checking for a condition which will never happen?  
> 
> The ioremap could fails due to no memory, our inner test robot(enable FAULT_INJECTION)
> 
> find this issue.

The code only runs on x86 where this specific memory segment is
standardized for the purpose. That's how we know it "can't fail".

That being said, maybe it could fail for other reasons (internal kernel
bug, or bogus BIOS maybe), and I don't care adding the check
anyway, as this code path is not performance critical.

-- 
Jean Delvare
SUSE L3 Support