linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] Stop some of the abuse of BUG() where compile time checks should be used.

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: <4ECB6080.7050407@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 22 Nov 2011 09:42:40 +0100
From:	DM <dm.n9107@...il.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Stop some of the abuse of BUG() where compile time
 checks should be used.

On 2011-11-22 02:31, David Daney wrote:
> From: David Daney <david.daney@...ium.com>
> 
> After some, perhaps justified, reluctance to merge dummy symbol
> definitions  containing BUG() into header files, I propose these patches
> instead.
> 
> We define a new compile time assertion BUILD_BUG_ON_USED() that can be
> used in places were we expect the compiler's dead code elimination to
> get rid of code.  This happens mostly in code dealing with huge pages,
> but in other places as well.
> 
> The first patch adds BUILD_BUG_ON_USED(), the second gets rid of one
> of the main abusers of BUG().
> 

Perhaps BUILD_BUG() is a more consistent name for this?

We would then have BUG() and BUG_ON(x) for run-time vs BUILD_BUG() and BUILD_BUG_ON(x) for compile-time.

/DM

--
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/