linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] qnx4: fix to avoid panic due to buffer overflow

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: <CAGudoHHietV1tkgQMXup0PE29SeZoZXbaBsWEmxUsLgSA-U32w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 12:56:36 +0100
From: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, Ronald Monthero <debug.penguin32@...il.com>, al@...rsen.net, 
	gustavoars@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, brauner@...nel.org, jack@...e.cz, 
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] qnx4: fix to avoid panic due to buffer overflow

On Sun, Feb 23, 2025 at 1:19 AM Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2025 at 01:12:47PM +0100, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
>
> > General tune is not holding the codebase hostage to obsolete (and
> > probably not at all operational) components. If in doubt, prune it.
>
> What exactly is being held hostage, though?  Do we have an API change
> that gets blocked just by the old filesystems and if so, which one
> it is?

I was speaking in general. Some code uses obsolete APIs, other puts
weird restrictions, some other has to be at least reviewed.

General point being mere existence of code is an extra maintenance burden.

If the code is beneficial to have, then so be it. But if the code at
hand is not even used by anyone (and it is unclear if it even works),
what's the point keeping it?

-- 
Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik gmail.com>