On 10/7/2024 7:53 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > On Mon, 7 Oct 2024 at 03:18, Bjorn Andersson <andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Sat, Oct 05, 2024 at 07:31:50PM GMT, Kuldeep Singh wrote: >>> The qcom_tzmem driver currently has multiple exposed APIs that lack >>> validations on input parameters. This oversight can lead to unexpected >>> crashes due to null pointer dereference when incorrect inputs are >>> provided. >>> >>> To address this issue, add required sanity for all input parameters in >>> the exposed APIs. >>> >> >> Unless there's good reason for the opposite, I rather see that we define >> the API to only accept valid pointers. Then if a client passes a NULL we >> get a oops with a nice callstack, which is easy to debug>> >> The alternative is that we return -EINVAL, which not unlikely is >> propagated to some application which may or may not result in a bug >> report from a user - without any tangible information about where things >> went wrong. Discussing with Dmitry as well on other thread over same point. Not all checks are needed but I believe some sanity is still needed to avoid crashes. > > Agreed, I don't think this is a good pattern in a kernel API (as > opposed to user-space interfaces where we validate everything). We > expect a certain level of sanity from in-kernel users. > > Bart -- Regards Kuldeep
