linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] ring_buffer: Change some static functions to 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20230303085723.53182d1576737f93dc46fc92@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 3 Mar 2023 08:57:23 +0900
From:   Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ring_buffer: Change some static functions to void

On Wed, 1 Mar 2023 11:34:16 -0500
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 1 Mar 2023 09:46:50 +0100
> Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 11:55 PM Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 18:59:27 +0100
> > > Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com> wrote:
> > >  
> > > > The results of some static functions are not used. Change the
> > > > type of these function to void and remove unnecessary returns.
> > > >
> > > > No functional change intended.  
> > >
> > > NAK, instead of dropping the errors, please handle it on the caller side.  
> > 
> > I was under the impression that the intention of these two functions
> > is to warn if there is any corruption in data pages detected. Please
> > note that the patch has no effect on code size, as the compiler is
> > smart enough to drop unused return values by itself. So, the change is
> > mostly cosmetic as I was just bothered by unused returns. I'm not
> > versed enough in the code to introduce additional error handling, so
> > considering its minimal impact, the patch can just be dropped.
> > 
> 
> I'm not against the change.
> 
> Masami,
> 
> I don't think we need to check the return values, as when these checks
> fail, it triggers RB_WARN_ON() which disables the ring buffer involved, and
> that should stop further progress of other calls to the affected ring
> buffer.

Ah, so the RB_WARN_ON() has a side effect which stops all further operations.
OK, I got it.

Reviewed-by: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>

> 
> -- Steve
> 


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>