linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] certs: Explain the rational to call panic()

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]

Date:   Tue, 22 Mar 2022 01:53:09 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>
To:     Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc:     Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Eric Snowberg <eric.snowberg@...cle.com>,
        keyrings@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ux.microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] certs: Explain the rational to call panic()

On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 02:23:54PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 1:45 PM Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net> wrote:
> >
> > From: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ux.microsoft.com>
> >
> > The blacklist_init() function calls panic() for memory allocation
> > errors.  This change documents the reason why we don't return -ENODEV.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com> [1]
> > Requested-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org> [1]
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/YjeW2r6Wv55Du0bJ@iki.fi [1]
> > Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ux.microsoft.com>
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220321174548.510516-2-mic@digikod.net
> > ---
> >  certs/blacklist.c | 8 ++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> 
> I would suggest changing the second sentence as shown below, but
> otherwise it looks good to me.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>

Reviewed-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>

Mickaël, I think since your patch set was not huge in the first place, I'm
considering making it part of rc2 pull request while I normally try to
avoid any features after rc1. It's anyway throughly tested, and generally
has been around for a *long time*. I've even tested it myself a few times.

Just trying to be responsible as a maintainer and if something does not
feel right, I don't  try to pretend that "I get it", if you know what 
I mean. This fully clarifies "not getting it" part :-)

Thanks!

BR, Jarkko