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]

Message-ID: <fa6dd51c-52c3-f7d1-b845-ec7266494410@digikod.net>
Date:   Tue, 22 Mar 2022 11:54:59 +0100
From:   Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
To:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
        Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc:     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 22/03/2022 00:53, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> 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!

Thanks Jarkko, I get it. ;)