Re: [PATCH] capability: WARN when invalid capability is requestedrather than BUG/panic

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:22:30 -0400
Eric Paris <eparis@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> No argument from me that patching up for buggy drivers sucks.  Yours
> would be less overhead, and it would return the cap system back to
> pre-2.6.25 operation (garbage in garbage out but no panic).  Since we
> already have the branch in SELinux its no 'extra' overhead to EPERM
> there instead of here (garbage in EPERM out).

to be honest, this is really a case of 
panic("This stuff is really borken")

if it passes some random value, what other api's does it pass a random
value to ?

(and in addition, random values to security critical APIs deserve a
process kill, because it could well be an exploit attempt at guessing
something. At least by not letting it live it's harder to get such type
of exploits to be able to guess things. So imo, BUG() is the right
answer)




-- 
Arjan van de Ven 	Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/