linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] mac80211: Add null pointer check for ieee80211_link_get

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: <293fe5ea564a98113443bbe93e6022c5bb6dd747.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2025 11:56:16 +0200
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, Wentao Liang <vulab@...as.ac.cn>
Cc: luciano.coelho@...el.com, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mac80211: Add null pointer check for
 ieee80211_link_get_chanctx()

On Mon, 2025-05-26 at 11:50 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> 
> I still very much disagree with you and _will_ keep adding warnings to
> the wireless stack. This would be one of those places where it's totally
> warranted, because it's actually impossible that this happens, for it to
> something else would have to be changed to go wrong in how this is
> called, for example.

And come to think of it, cases like this are exactly why some people
decide to crash the system on warnings. It's things that the developers
thought were impossible, but should be double-checked. If we stop
putting warnings on such places, then the decision to crash on warnings
becomes entirely meaningless. So seems to me that just lashing out
against warnings all the time is actually detrimental to the intent of
such configurations?

johannes