[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 08:51:04 -0600
From: Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: ebiggers3@...il.com, dhowells@...hat.com, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, jmorris@...ei.org,
serge@...lyn.com, Jason@...c4.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] big key: get rid of stack array allocation
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
