Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:3;
Date:   Wed, 25 Oct 2023 07:14:08 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To:     Sabrina Dubroca <sd@queasysnail.net>
Cc:     Hangyu Hua <hbh25y@gmail.com>, borisp@nvidia.com,
        john.fastabend@gmail.com, davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com,
        pabeni@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: tls: Fix possible NULL-pointer dereference in
 tls_decrypt_device() and tls_decrypt_sw()
Message-ID: <20231025071408.3b33f733@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <ZTjteQgXWKXDqnos@hog>
References: <20231023080611.19244-1-hbh25y@gmail.com>
        <ZTZ9H4aDB45RzrFD@hog>
        <120e6c2c-6122-41db-8c46-7753e9659c70@gmail.com>
        <ZTjteQgXWKXDqnos@hog>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 12:27:05 +0200 Sabrina Dubroca wrote:
> > My bad. I only checked &msg->msg_iter's address in tls_decrypt_sw and found
> > it was wrong. Do I need to make a new patch to fix the harmless bogus
> > pointer?  
> 
> I don't think that's necessary, but maybe it would avoid people trying
> to "fix" this code in the future. Jakub, WDYT?

No strong feelings, but personally I find checks for conditions which
cannot happen decrease the readability. Maybe a comment is better?