netdev - Re: [patch] sunrpc: add missing return statement

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: <201005042302.BGH82397.FJVOFSOLQOMFHt@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date:	Tue, 4 May 2010 23:02:26 +0900
From:	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To:	trond.myklebust@....uio.no
Cc:	jw@...ix.com, davem@...emloft.net, batsakis@...app.com,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] sunrpc: add missing return statement

Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > > No. It should either be a BUG_ON(), or else be removed entirely.
> > > Returning an error value for something that is clearly a programming bug
> > > is not a particularly useful exercise...
> > > 
> > Removing NULL check is wrong because it will NULL pointer dereference later.
> 
> Wrong. Removing NULL check is _right_ because calling this function
> without setting up a back channel first is a major BUG. Returning an
> error value to the user is pointless, since the user has no control over
> this. It is entirely under control of the sunrpc developers...
> 
For security people, removing

	if (!args->bc_xprt)
		ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);

is worse and changing to

	BUG_ON(!args->bc_xprt);

is better.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html