linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] asm-generic: bug.h: add unreachable() in BUG() for CONFIG

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 PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Sun, 17 Oct 2021 13:16:30 -0700
From:   Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        linux-m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] asm-generic: bug.h: add unreachable() in BUG() for
 CONFIG_BUG not set

On 10/17/21 12:38 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 9:27 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> wrote:
>> On 10/17/21 12:24 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 9:17 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> wrote:
>>>> On 10/17/21 12:09 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 7:49 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Did you see any other issues like this one on m68k, or the
>>>>> same one on another architecture?
>>>>
>>>> No and no.
>>>
>>> Ok, maybe before we waste too much time on it, just add an extra
>>> return statement to afs_dir_set_page_dirty()?
>>
>> I think that patch has already been rejected a few times...
> 
> Indeed, this is one I had looked at before:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAK8P3a3L6B9HXsOXSu9_c6pz1kN91Vig6EPsetLuYVW=M72XaQ@mail.gmail.com/
> 
> It seems that this version:
> 
> +#define BUG() do {                                             \
> +               do {} while (1);                                \
> +               unreachable();                                  \
> +       } while (0)
> 
> ended up being one that didn't see any objections.

Yes, I was just thinking of a change like that while eating lunch. :)

-- 
~Randy