| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <87ms25soch.fsf@yellow.woof> Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2026 15:39:58 +0100 From: Nam Cao <namcao@...utronix.de> To: Gabriele Monaco <gmonaco@...hat.com>, Wander Lairson Costa <wander@...hat.com> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "open list:RUNTIME VERIFICATION (RV)" <linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/26] rv/rvgen: introduce AutomataError exception class Gabriele Monaco <gmonaco@...hat.com> writes: > That could be a good tradeoff. Users are developer but (although I'm not sure if > it really happened yet) are not the rvgen developers, they don't need to know > where exactly the code complained, unless it really broke. > All errors that are expected (OSError or wrong format) should have a meaningful > message for the user, I believe by doing that we'd have a pretty clear idea > where the error came from in the code too (e.g. event parsing, opening a file, > etc.). > > If the code has a bug, then yes we should throw the exception as is, that's why > I think it's good not to catch Exception, but to catch only the few exceptions > we know can happen, all others would be bugs. I second this. We should only catch expected exceptions (e.g. the .dot file is malformed) and print meaningful message. Otherwise, just leave it uncaught. While working with rvgen, I usually just remove the try-catch, because it takes away all the useful debug information while not offering anything else. Nam
Powered by blists - more mailing lists