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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b76a3c35-015f-8ecb-0dd1-1329ee93e637@huawei.com>
Date:   Sat, 11 May 2019 09:32:12 +0800
From:   Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
To:     Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>
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 2019/5/10 20:18, Jean Delvare wrote:
> 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.
Got it , please ignore it.
>