linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Add documentation on meaning of -EPROBE

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:   Sat, 28 Mar 2020 14:46:07 -0700
From:   Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>
To:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc:     Grant Likely <grant.likely@....com>,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, nd@....com,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add documentation on meaning of -EPROBE_DEFER

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 10:03 AM Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 27 Mar 2020 16:55:34 -0700
> Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The infinite loop is a current implementation behavior. Not an
> > > > intentional choice. So, maybe we can say the behavior is undefined
> > > > instead?
> > >
> > > If you feel strongly about it, but I don't have any problem with
> > > documenting it as the current implementation behaviour, and then
> > > changing the text if that ever changes.
> >
> > Assuming Greg is okay with this doc update, I'm kinda leaning towards
> > "undefined" because if documented as "infinite loop" people might be
> > hesitant towards removing that behavior. But I'll let Greg make the
> > final call. Not going to NACK for this point.
>
> FWIW, kernel developers have to cope with enough trouble from "undefined
> behavior" already; I don't think we should really be adding that to our
> own docs.  We can certainly document the infinite loop behavior as being
> not guaranteed as part of the API if we're worried that somebody might
> start to rely on it...:)

Ok, all of you have convinced me of the error of my ways. :)

Thanks,
Saravana