Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 25 Sep 2018 14:55:13 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Vladis Dronov <vdronov@redhat.com>
To:     Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc:     Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@google.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Oliver Neukum <oneukum@suse.com>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
        syzkaller <syzkaller@googlegroups.com>,
        USB list <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Message-ID: <1810191004.16066868.1537901713871.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1809251352540.1517-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1809251352540.1517-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: usbfs: fix crash in
 check_ctrlrecip()->usb_find_alt_setting()
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thread-Topic: usbfs: fix crash in check_ctrlrecip()->usb_find_alt_setting()
Thread-Index: 769AhKLgnsn5MS0mertdHakXGYdjeg==
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hello, Alan, Andrey, all,

> > > (You'll be lucky if Linus doesn't see that.  He yells at anybody who
> > > suggests adding BUG_ON for anything that doesn't completely crash

Now, may be not )

> > > How is this different from calling kfree() with a NULL argument?

It is not, it is the same case.

> > What about adding a WARN_ON()? It doesn't crash the kernel and it will
> > be detected and reported by syzbot.

Yes, that would be a great solution.

> Sure, we could do that.  But would be the point?

We know when usb_find_alt_setting() callers do smth weird and go fix them.

> After c9a4cb204e9e, calling usb_find_alt_setting() with a NULL config is
> no more of a bug than calling kfree() with a NULL pointer.

Yes, exactly.

> You wouldn't want to put a WARN_ON in kfree(), would you?

Honestly, in the ideal world I would, again, to be aware when some code does
something weird so we know about it. But this world is this world, it needs
more performance to the throne of performance.

I have no other arguments except the above, please, feel free to not to accept
my patch.

Best regards,
Vladis Dronov | Red Hat, Inc. | Product Security Engineer