linux-kernel - Re: trivial patches: Should we care about control reaches end of non-void function

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: <20081015232625.547ebe9e@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date:	Wed, 15 Oct 2008 23:26:25 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Steve Kemp <steve@...ve.org.uk>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: trivial patches: Should we care about control reaches end of
 non-void function

>   I see some functions in the kernel have added "return 0" after the
>  BUG, presumably to silence these warnings.  Would a patch to do this
>  consistently, or is that too trivial even for trivial patches?

Probably better to mark BUG() properly for the compiler.

If you can get __attribute((__noreturn__)) on the end of the BUG function
somehow say

static inline void bug_off(void) __attribute((__noreturn__)) {};

and expanded that onto the end of the macro maybe it would shut up

Alan
--
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/