linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] driver core: ensure a device has valid node id in device

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: <20190911073451.GM4023@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Wed, 11 Sep 2019 09:34:51 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, rafael@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
        mingo@...nel.org, linuxarm@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] driver core: ensure a device has valid node id in
 device_add()

On Wed 11-09-19 15:22:30, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
[...]
> It seems that there is no protection that prevent setting the node
> of device to an invalid node.
> And the kernel does have a few different check now:
> 1) some does " < 0" check;
> 2) some does "== NUMA_NO_NODE" check;
> 3) some does ">= MAX_NUMNODES" check;
> 4) some does "< 0 || >= MAX_NUMNODES || !node_online(node)" check.
> 
> We need to be consistent about the checking, right?

You can try and chase each of them and see what to do with them. I
suspect they are a result of random attempts to fortify the code in many
cases. Consistency is certainly good but spreading more checks all over
the place just adds more cargo cult. Each check should be reasonably
justified.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs