linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] string.h: Mark 34 functions with __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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20191009122735.17415f9c@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Wed, 9 Oct 2019 12:27:35 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] string.h: Mark 34 functions with __must_check

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 09:13:17 -0700
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 8:09 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 14:14:28 +0200
> > Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de> wrote:
> >  
> > > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
> > > Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 13:53:59 +0200
> > >
> > > Several functions return values with which useful data processing
> > > should be performed. These values must not be ignored then.
> > > Thus use the annotation “__must_check” in the shown function declarations.
> > >
> > > Add also corresponding parameter names for adjusted functions.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
> > >  
> >
> > I'm curious. How many warnings showed up when you applied this patch?  
> 
> I got zero for x86_64 and arm64 defconfig builds of linux-next with
> this applied.  Hopefully that's not an argument against the more
> liberal application of it?  I view __must_check as a good thing, and
> encourage its application, unless someone can show that a certain
> function would be useful to call without it.

Not at all, I was just curious, because I would have expected patches
to fix possible bugs with it.

-- Steve