linux-kernel - Re: Must check what?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <452506A2.2020103@aitel.hist.no>
Date:	Thu, 05 Oct 2006 15:20:34 +0200
From:	Helge Hafting <helge.hafting@...el.hist.no>
To:	Vadim Lobanov <vlobanov@...akeasy.net>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Must check what?

Vadim Lobanov wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 October 2006 12:43, Andrew Morton wrote:
>   
>> I like assertions personally.  If we had something like:
>>
>> void foo(args)
>> {
>> 	locals;
>>
>> 	assert_irqs_enabled();
>> 	assert_spin_locked(some_lock);
>> 	assert_in_atomic();
>> 	assert_mutex_locked(some_mutex);
>>
>> then we get documentation which is (optionally) checked at runtime - best
>> of both worlds.  Better than doing it in kernel-doc.  Automatically
>> self-updating (otherwise kernels go BUG).
>>     
>
> Uhoh! How much is that going to hurt runtime? :) It actually seems to me like 
> this should be doable by static code analysis tools without terribly much 
> pain (in the relative sense of the term). Or am I wrong on this thought?
>   
Surely, any debugging that hurts will only really be there
if you enable CONFIG_DEBUG_something

The kind of stuff you ask people to turn on when they report
strange crashes.

Helge Hafting
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/