netdev - Re: [Patch net] sch_sfb: fix a crash in sfb

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: <20190912.134229.2035407960151017293.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Thu, 12 Sep 2019 13:42:29 +0200 (CEST)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:     xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        syzbot+d5870a903591faaca4ae@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
        jhs@...atatu.com, jiri@...nulli.us
Subject: Re: [Patch net] sch_sfb: fix a crash in sfb_destroy()

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 11:31:06 +0100

> It depends on what you want to do, of course. Do you want to make sure
> each user is being very careful? Or do you want to make the interfaces
> easy to use without _having_ to be careful? There are arguments both
> ways, but we've tended to move more towards a "easy to use" model than
> the "be careful" one.

Yes, I think allowing NULL or error pointers on free/destroy makes sense.