| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20101217154947.3e95488c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 15:49:47 -0800 From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> To: Baruch Siach <baruch@...s.co.il> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] delay.h: add __must_check to msleep_interruptible On Thu, 4 Nov 2010 10:55:41 +0200 Baruch Siach <baruch@...s.co.il> wrote: > Code calling msleep_interruptible() must be aware that sleep time might be > shorter than intended as a result of a signal being caught. Code not checking > the return value of msleep_interruptible() is probably buggy, unless it's doing > the signal_pending() check itself, which is redundant. > True. But there are around 250 callsites which don't check the msleep_interruptible() return value. I don't think I want to add 250 new warnings to the kernel build - it'll take *years* to get them all weeded out and meanwhile it will cause people to miss other warnings while they're ignoring the msleep_interruptible() warnings. So. Some lucky duck needs to get down and start fixing all these things first, please. Meanwhile, a checkpatch rule which prevents new occurrences would be good. Except lots of developers and maintainers can't be assed running checkpatch, so a volunteer who regularly runs linux-next.patch and patch-2.6.Y-rcY through checkpatch and then hassles people would also be good. -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists