[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/4] drivers: hwspinlock: add generic framework
    On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
    <> wrote:
    > On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:53:10AM +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
    >> >> +int __hwspin_trylock(struct hwspinlock *hwlock, int mode, unsigned long *flags)
    >> >> +{
    >> >> +     int ret;
    >> >> +
    >> >> +     if (unlikely(!hwlock)) {
    >> >> +             pr_err("invalid hwlock\n");
    >> >
    >> > These kind of errors can get very spammy for buggy drivers.
    >> Yeah, but that's the purpose - I want to catch such egregious drivers
    >> who try to crash the kernel.
    > That can be better - because you get a backtrace, and it causes people
    > to report the problem rather than just ignore it.  It may also prevent
    > the driver author releasing his code (as it won't work on their
    > initial testing.)
    > If it's "extremely buggy behaviour" then the drivers deserve to crash.
    > Such stuff should cause them not to get out the door.  A simple printk
    > with an error return can just be ignored.

    I like this approach too, but recently we had a few privilege
    escalation exploits which involved NULL dereference kernel bugs
    (process context mapped address 0 despite a positive mmap_min_addr).

    Since we can't rely on the oops to always happen, I decided not to
    omit the NULL checks.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2010-11-26 11:19    [W:0.020 / U:13.752 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site