linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] vsprintf: Do not break early boot with probing addresses

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: <20190513101550.736fb5f6@oasis.local.home>
Date:   Mon, 13 May 2019 10:15:50 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
        'christophe leroy' <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        "Tobin C . Harding" <me@...in.cc>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        "linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Russell Currey <ruscur@...sell.cc>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...abs.org>,
        Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
        "linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-s390@...r.kernel.org" <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vsprintf: Do not break early boot with probing
 addresses

On Mon, 13 May 2019 14:42:20 +0200
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com> wrote:

> > The "(null)" is good enough by itself and already an established
> > practice..  
> 
> (efault) made more sense with the probe_kernel_read() that
> checked wide range of addresses. Well, I still think that
> it makes sense to distinguish a pure NULL. And it still
> used also for IS_ERR_VALUE().

Why not just "(fault)"? That is self descriptive enough.

-- Steve