netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/3] ser_gigaset: fix up NULL checks

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: <56680665.4000301@imap.cc>
Date:	Wed, 9 Dec 2015 11:45:57 +0100
From:	Tilman Schmidt <tilman@...p.cc>
To:	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
	syzkaller@...glegroups.com, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Karsten Keil <isdn@...ux-pingi.de>,
	isdn4linux@...tserv.isdn4linux.de,
	gigaset307x-common@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ser_gigaset: fix up NULL checks

Am 08.12.2015 um 23:16 schrieb One Thousand Gnomes:
> The right fix as far as I can see is to remove the tests although
> WARN_ON() combined with your tty->ops change might be safer.

Feel free to submit a patch.

>> It's pretty obvious that this should have been part of commit
>>  f34d7a5b7010 ("tty: The big operations rework"). That being said, these
> 
> It ahould probably have been fixed around the same time or in one of the
> tty locking reviews, but drivers/isdn and net/irda weren't traditionally
> part of the general tty maintenance but handled separately/

Or just ignored.

>> test puzzle me. It's not obvious why they're needed. Ie, can the null
>> dereferences they try to catch really happen? But I can try to figure
>> out that in the future, if I ever feel the urge to do so. Anyhow:
>>
>> Acked-by: Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
> 
> Nacked-by: Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>

So you feel it's better to maintain the current inconsistent state
created by commit f34d7a5b? Please elaborate.


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)