linux-kernel - Re: [linux-safety] [PATCH] usb: host: ehci-sched: add comment about find

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: <20201013052150.GA330398@kroah.com>
Date:   Tue, 13 Oct 2020 07:21:50 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
Cc:     Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-safety@...ts.elisa.tech,
        linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [linux-safety] [PATCH] usb: host: ehci-sched: add comment about
 find_tt() not returning error

On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 08:17:34PM +0200, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:
> > If you are suggesting some sort of special code annotation that the tool 
> > would understand, I am open to that.  But I'm not aware of any even 
> > vaguely standard way of marking up a particular function call to 
> > indicate it will not return an error.
> 
> I cannot yet say if some annotation would work, we, Sudip and me, need to 
> investigate. It could be that something like, assert(!IS_ERR(tt)), is 
> sufficient to let the tools know that they can safely assume that the 
> path they are complaining about is not possible.
> 
> We could make the assert() a nop, so it would not effect the resulting 
> object code in any way.

Things like assert() have been rejected numberous times in the past in
the kernel, good luck with that :)

greg k-h