From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758112AbcHCSow (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Aug 2016 14:44:52 -0400 Received: from outbound1.eu.mailhop.org ([52.28.251.132]:16154 "EHLO outbound1.eu.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756809AbcHCSos (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Aug 2016 14:44:48 -0400 X-MHO-User: 1ccf96a9-59aa-11e6-ac92-3142cfe117f2 X-Report-Abuse-To: https://support.duocircle.com/support/solutions/articles/5000540958-duocircle-standard-smtp-abuse-information X-Originating-IP: 74.99.77.15 X-Mail-Handler: DuoCircle Outbound SMTP X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.6.8 io 83A5C80417 Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 18:42:47 +0000 From: Jason Cooper To: Michael Ellerman Cc: Kees Cook , "Roberts, William C" , Yann Droneaud , Linux-MM , LKML , "kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com" , Russell King - ARM Linux , Andrew Morton , "Theodore Ts'o" , Arnd Bergmann , Greg KH , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Ralf Baechle , "benh@kernel.crashing.org" , Paul Mackerras , "David S. Miller" , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , "x86@kernel.org" , Al Viro , Nick Kralevich , Jeffrey Vander Stoep , Daniel Cashman Subject: Re: [kernel-hardening] Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] random: Simplify API for random address requests Message-ID: <20160803184247.GR4541@io.lakedaemon.net> References: <20160728204730.27453-1-jason@lakedaemon.net> <20160730154244.403-1-jason@lakedaemon.net> <20160730154244.403-2-jason@lakedaemon.net> <20160731205632.GY4541@io.lakedaemon.net> <20160801231723.GG4541@io.lakedaemon.net> <878twfonbi.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <878twfonbi.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 01:35:13PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Jason Cooper writes: > > On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 12:47:59PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > >> On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Jason Cooper wrote: > >> > >> I have no new call sites in mind, but it seems safe to add a BUG_ON to > >> verify we don't gain callers that don't follow the correct > >> expectations. (Or maybe WARN and return start.) > > > > No, I think BUG_ON is appropriate. afaict, the only time this will be > > encountered is during the development process. > > Unless it's not. > > Why crash someone's system when you could just page align the value > you're given? Ack, v3 on it's way. thx, Jason.