linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] return hidden bug

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

Message-ID: <20071022111904.72f54ab9@bree.surriel.com>
Date:	Mon, 22 Oct 2007 11:19:04 -0400
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	"Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Cc:	"Roel Kluin" <12o3l@...cali.nl>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] return hidden bug

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 12:30:00 +0300
"Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi> wrote:
> On 10/22/07, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> wrote:
> > BUG() will terminate the process that runs into it, so you can
> > just remove the return alltogether.  If BUG() is hit, the return
> > will never be reached.
> 
> This isn't true when CONFIG_BUG is disabled (in embedded builds, for
> example).

*blink*

I guess people who disable CONFIG_BUG really choose to shoot themselves
in the foot when something bad happens.  The kernel is full of error
paths where the current thread really should not be continuing.

Oh well...

-- 
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan
-
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/