Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 19 Oct 2022 14:25:27 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To:     Haakon Bugge <haakon.bugge@oracle.com>
Cc:     Jane Chu <jane.chu@oracle.com>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        "rostedt@goodmis.org" <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        "senozhatsky@chromium.org" <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
        "linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk" <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        John Haxby <john.haxby@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vsprintf: protect kernel from panic due to non-canonical
 pointer dereference
Message-ID: <Y0/ep9LS5jVTrUWI@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20221017191611.2577466-1-jane.chu@oracle.com>
 <Y02sENwhtpsx5yhP@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <5d987403-a7bf-8996-d639-c99edeaabcdf@oracle.com>
 <Y06f4EwisLTU0rEz@alley>
 <799e5390-2ff5-02b7-2df7-61198d5451e2@oracle.com>
 <Y08Hn6on37fgc57F@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <f77145e0-2bc9-a558-7f55-22100fa4b5ed@oracle.com>
 <Y08RVzvniYr8ycKV@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <198982F5-E94C-4F95-8197-FE69EFBA670F@oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <198982F5-E94C-4F95-8197-FE69EFBA670F@oracle.com>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 10:43:07AM +0000, Haakon Bugge wrote:
> > On 18 Oct 2022, at 22:49, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 08:30:01PM +0000, Jane Chu wrote:

...

> > Obviously, to see the crash. And let kernel _to crash_. Isn't it what we need
> > to see a bug as early as possible?
> 
> If you follow that argument, why doesn't the kernel crash when the pointer
> is, e.g., a NULL pointer? According to you, shouldn't it crash a early as
> possible in that case also?

Because it is _special_. It's not just an invalid pointer. There may be
very well good cases where we supply (valid!) NULL pointers to the printf().

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko