linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] bug: Switch data corruption check to __must

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAGXu5jK5XNt4mqUrZNm=hKthn6L0xUFHi2MenZhyFgMTsUbcNA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 Feb 2017 13:18:03 -0800
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>, dipankar@...ibm.com,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        pranith kumar <bobby.prani@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bug: Switch data corruption check to __must_check

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 9:45 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>> The CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION() macro was designed to have callers do
>> something meaningful/protective on failure. However, using "return false"
>> in the macro too strictly limits the design patterns of callers. Instead,
>> let callers handle the logic test directly, but make sure that the result
>> IS checked by forcing __must_check (which appears to not be able to be
>> used directly on macro expressions).
>>
>> Suggested-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
>
> The patch looks ok, but I have no memory of suggesting this. Was this an older
> conversation we had that I already forgot, or did you confuse me with someone
> else?

Old conversation that we had. :)

https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9286627/

It just took me *cough* 6 months ... :P

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security