[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y0/ep9LS5jVTrUWI@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2022 14:25:27 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Haakon Bugge <haakon.bugge@...cle.com>
Cc: Jane Chu <jane.chu@...cle.com>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
"rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"senozhatsky@...omium.org" <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
"linux@...musvillemoes.dk" <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
John Haxby <john.haxby@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vsprintf: protect kernel from panic due to non-canonical
pointer dereference
On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 10:43:07AM +0000, Haakon Bugge wrote:
> > On 18 Oct 2022, at 22:49, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 08:30:01PM +0000, Jane Chu wrote:
...
> > Obviously, to see the crash. And let kernel _to crash_. Isn't it what we need
> > to see a bug as early as possible?
>
> If you follow that argument, why doesn't the kernel crash when the pointer
> is, e.g., a NULL pointer? According to you, shouldn't it crash a early as
> possible in that case also?
Because it is _special_. It's not just an invalid pointer. There may be
very well good cases where we supply (valid!) NULL pointers to the printf().
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists