linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/10] x86: mce: fix error 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4C5066CB.7010009@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 28 Jul 2010 19:20:11 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Vasiliy Kulikov <segooon@...il.com>
CC:	kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@....com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] x86: mce: fix error handling


> I'm agree with you that if allocation fails at boot time, we are dead :)
> But this coding style breaking rules that result from some functions
> _must_ be checked for errors. Maybe we should add BUG_ON() here or
> indicate someway that we have no ideas how to handle error?

What rules exactly? I don't think any of those functions are declared 
with __must_check

Coding style should never get in the way of what is right.

The classic way to explicitely discard a return value is a cast to void, 
but that is generally considered
ugly in the Linux kernel.

One could possibly add a comment about this at least.

-Andi

--
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/