lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] big key: get rid of stack array allocation
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Serge E. Hallyn <serge@hallyn.com> wrote:
> Quoting Tycho Andersen (tycho@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?

BUG() is basically supposed to never be used, as decreed by Linus.
WARN() here is entirely correct: if we encounter a case where
crypto_aead_ivsize(big_key_aead) != GCM_AES_IV_SIZE is not true, we
run the risk of stack memory corruption. If this is an EXPECTED
failure case, then okay, drop the WARN() but we have to keep the
-EINVAL.

-Kees

--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-24 22:05    [W:0.096 / U:0.940 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site