linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kernel/sched/core.c: need return NULL when BUG() is defined as empty.

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]

Date:	Wed, 22 May 2013 11:11:56 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Chen Gang <gang.chen@...anux.com>
Cc:	"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel/sched/core.c: need return NULL when BUG() is
 defined as empty.

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 03:48:53PM +0800, Chen Gang wrote:
> 
> When neither CONFIG_BUG nor HAVE_ARCH_BUG is defined, need let function
> return failure value ('NULL') instead of random value.

What will such a kernel do? Happily continue running whenever we hit a
BUG? that seems like a particularly bad idea. Should we not have a stub
BUG() function like:

void BUG(void) __attribute__((noreturn))
{
	local_irq_disable();
	while (1) ;
}

Which would at least halt things?
--
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/