linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] SPI: improve sysfs compiler complaint handling

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: <1160680127.3000.471.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Date:	Thu, 12 Oct 2006 21:08:46 +0200
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To:	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SPI: improve sysfs compiler complaint handling

> 
> > Who wrote all this stuff, and what were they thinking?
> 
> I suspect what they were thinking was the old "if you can't figure out
> how to handle the error, don't test for it" thing. 

the __must_check gcc feature was primarily designed to mark security
sensitive API's (such as copy_from_user) where you really do have to
check. Or cases where not checking/using is always a bug (realloc() in
userspace comes to mind).

It's OUR choice to mark the sysfs functions with this semantic, if we
don't want this strict warning we shouldn't use this attribute.

Based on many of the things that showed up so far, and Andrews comments,
I sort of get the feeling we DO want this behavior though...

-
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/