linux-kernel - Re: tcp: Checking a kmemdup() call in tcp_time

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: <a31967be-b59e-0da8-1119-633c4927a904@web.de>
Date:   Mon, 14 Oct 2019 19:19:27 +0200
From:   Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
To:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Hideaki Yoshifuji <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        Aditya Pakki <pakki001@....edu>, Kangjie Lu <kjlu@....edu>,
        Navid Emamdoost <emamd001@....edu>,
        Stephen McCamant <smccaman@....edu>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: tcp: Checking a kmemdup() call in tcp_time_wait()

> This is coding style for newly submitted code.
>
> We do not refactor code to the latest coding style, this would cost a lot.

Were any update candidates left over also in this function implementation?


>> How do you think about to return an error code like “-ENOMEM” at this place?
>
> tcp_time_wait() is void,

Can the function return type be eventually changed?


> the caller won't care.

Will any other software developers (and source code reviewers) start to
care more for unchecked function calls?


> I told you time_wait is best effort.

Can this approach still be improved another bit?


> What is the problem you want to solve _exactly_ ?

I became curious if the software situation can be adjusted around
a possibly ignored return value from a call of a function like kmemdup().

Regards,
Markus