linux-kernel - Re: 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: <CAKwvOd=Jo5UkQN9A9rTJf0WtsxXNjaJ=jxf2gwHFdW8om-fbTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 9 Oct 2019 10:33:57 -0700
From:   Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        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>,
        Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Subject: Re: string.h: Mark 34 functions with __must_check

On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 10:04 AM Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de> wrote:
>
> > Ah, granted, I was surprised, too.
>
> Thanks for this view.

I mean, it's a good thing that we don't have any issues that this
patch would catch today.  Seems Steven and I were surprised
(pessimistic?).

>
>
> > Maybe would be helpful to mention that in the commit message.
>
> My Linux software build resources might be too limited to take
> more system configuration variations safely into account
> for this issue.

That's understandable. I think if the patch bakes in linux-next, it
might flush out some problematic cases in other ARCH's.

> Would you like to achieve further checks here?

I reviewed the functions here and believe the ones you added checks
for all look good.  I value Rasmus' feedback, so I'd like to hear what
he thinks about my earlier comments.  I have no comment if we should
go further/annotate more, other than that that can be done in a follow
up patch.  Though Joe's comment on the relative order of where the
annotation appears in the function declarations should be addressed in
a V2 IMO.
-- 
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers