[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1501091840.1196.12.camel@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:57:20 -0400
From:   Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fortify: Use WARN instead of BUG for now
> Maybe we could do two phases? One to s/BUG/WARN/ and the second to
> improve the message?
s/fortify_panic/fortify_overflow/ + use WARN + remove __noreturn makes
sense as one commit. Still think the *option* of __noreturn + BUG should
be kept there even just for measuring the size overhead. !COMPILE_TIME
&& EXPERT if it needs to be for now. If you're fully removing __noreturn
then the entry in tools/objtool/check.c for __noreturn functions also
won't make sense (either way it needs to use the new name).
I think improving error messages should be done a bit differently though
and it'll be easier to not tie these things together.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
 
