netdev - Re: [PATCH net 1/3] taprio: Fix kernel panic in taprio

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]

Date:   Wed, 28 Aug 2019 10:38:58 -0700
From:   Vinicius Costa Gomes <vinicius.gomes@...el.com>
To:     Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc:     jhs@...atatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, vedang.patel@...el.com,
        leandro.maciel.dorileo@...el.com, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 1/3] taprio: Fix kernel panic in taprio_destroy

Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com> writes:

>> Personally, I would do things differently, I am thinking: adding the
>> taprio instance earlier to the list in taprio_init(), and keeping
>> taprio_destroy() the way it is now. But take this more as a suggestion
>> :-)
>>
>
> While I don't strongly oppose your proposal (keep the list removal
> unconditional, but match it better in placement to the list addition),
> I think it's rather fragile and I do see this bug recurring in the
> future. Anyway if you want to keep it "simpler" I can respin it like
> that.
>

I am thinking that keeping things "simpler" has the advantage of making
any bugs really loud and hopefully easier to catch.


Cheers,
--
Vinicius