[PATCH 1/3] big key: get rid of stack array allocation
Eric Biggers
ebiggers3 at gmail.com
Tue Apr 24 20:09:06 UTC 2018
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 02:58:45PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Tycho Andersen (tycho at tycho.ws):
> > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 11:46:38PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > > > > > + if (unlikely(crypto_aead_ivsize(big_key_aead) != GCM_AES_IV_SIZE)) {
> > > > > > + WARN(1, "big key algorithm changed?");
> > >
> > > Please avoid using WARN() WARN_ON() etc.
> > > syzbot would catch it and panic() due to panic_on_warn == 1.
> >
> > But it is really a programming bug in this case (and it seems better
> > than BUG()...). Isn't this exactly the sort of case we want to catch?
> >
> > Tycho
>
> Right - is there a url to some discussion about this? Because not
> using WARN when WARN should be used, because it troubles a bot, seems
> the wrong solution. If this *is* what's been agreed upon, then
> what is the new recommended thing to do here?
>
> -serge
WARN() is for recoverable kernel bugs, which this is, so WARN() is correct here.
Fuzzers often find cases where WARN() is used on invalid user input or other
cases that are not kernel bugs, and then it has to be removed or replaced with
pr_warn(). But here it is appropriate. Unfortunately a lot of developers still
seem confused; improving the comments in include/asm-generic/bug.h might help.
Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-security-module" in
the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
More information about the Linux-security-module-archive
mailing list