netdev - Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] KEYS: Avoid false positive ENOMEM error on key read

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: <20200320222113.GB5284@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Sat, 21 Mar 2020 00:21:13 +0200
From:   Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org, Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>,
        Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@...hat.com>,
        Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>,
        Chris von Recklinghausen <crecklin@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] KEYS: Avoid false positive ENOMEM error on key
 read

On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 12:19:27AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> Would move this label before condition instead of jumping inside the
> nested block since it will always evaluate correctly.
> 
> To this version haven't really gotten why you don't use a legit loop
> construct but instead jump from one random nested location to another
> random nested location? This construct will be somewhat nasty to
> maintain. The construct is weird enough that you should have rather
> good explanation in the long description why such a mess.

What I'm saying that if I fix a bug, the first version of the fix
would probably look something like this is right now. They I think
how to write it right. We don't want fixes that just happen to work.
Right now I'm worried to take this in since I'm not confident that
I haven't some possible corner case, or might still have gotten
something just plain wrong.

/Jarkko