netdev - Re: [PATCH] xfrm: use printk instead of WARN for bad policy reporting

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <57984EA6.3040205@oracle.com>
Date:	Wed, 27 Jul 2016 08:03:18 +0200
From:	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>
To:	Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
Cc:	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfrm: use printk instead of WARN for bad policy reporting

On 07/20/2016 02:15 PM, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 10:32:35AM +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote:
>> AFAICT this message is just printed whenever input validation fails.
>> This is a normal failure and we shouldn't be dumping the stack over it.
>>
>> Looks like it was originally a printk that was maybe incorrectly
>> upgraded to a WARN:
>>
>> commit 62db5cfd70b1ef53aa21f144a806fe3b78c84fab
>> Author: stephen hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
>> Date:   Wed May 12 06:37:06 2010 +0000
>>
>>      xfrm: add severity to printk
>>
>> Cc: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>
>> ---
>>   net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c
>> index 4fb04ce..0b81bfc 100644
>> --- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c
>> +++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_user.c
>> @@ -2150,7 +2150,7 @@ static int xfrm_add_acquire(struct sk_buff *skb, struct nlmsghdr *nlh,
>>   	return 0;
>>
>>   bad_policy:
>> -	WARN(1, "BAD policy passed\n");
>> +	printk(KERN_WARNING "xfrm_user: bad policy passed\n");
>
> Why should we print here anything at all? If it is a normal
> configuration error, we should remove the printing.
>

New patch attached. Thanks,


Vegard

View attachment "0001-xfrm-get-rid-of-incorrect-WARN.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (1467 bytes)