linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] afs: fix no return statement in function returning non-void

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: <07d62654-15c1-29a4-c671-1669ea92510b@infradead.org>
Date:   Tue, 15 Jun 2021 19:19:03 -0700
From:   Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Hulk Robot <hulkci@...wei.com>,
        Zheng Zengkai <zhengzengkai@...wei.com>,
        Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
        Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@...istor.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] afs: fix no return statement in function returning
 non-void

On 6/15/21 6:38 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 6/15/21 5:32 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 4:58 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Some implementations of BUG() are macros, not functions,
>>
>> Not "some", I think. Most.
>>
>>> so "unreachable" is not applicable AFAIK.
>>
>> Sure it is. One common pattern is the x86 one:
>>
>>   #define BUG()                                                   \
>>   do {                                                            \
>>           instrumentation_begin();                                \
>>           _BUG_FLAGS(ASM_UD2, 0);                                 \
>>           unreachable();                                          \
>>   } while (0)
> 
> duh.
> 
>> and that "unreachable()" is exactly what I'm talking about.
>>
>> So I repeat: what completely broken compiler / config / architecture
>> is it that needs that "return 0" after a BUG() statement?
> 
> I have seen it on ia64 -- most likely GCC 9.3.0, but I'll have to
> double check that.

Nope, I cannot repro that now. I'll check a few more arches...

>> Because that environment is broken, and the warning is bogus and wrong.
>>
>> It might not be the compiler. It might be some architecture that does
>> this wrong. It might be some very particular configuration that does
>> something bad and makes the "unreachable()" not work (or not exist).
>>
>> But *that* is the bug that should be fixed. Not adding a pointless and
>> incorrect line that makes no sense, just to hide the real bug.


-- 
~Randy