Re: [git patches] two warning fixes
- From: Krzysztof Halasa <khc@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:38:46 +0200
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
So let's make a new rule:
We absolutely NEVER add things like "must_check" unless not checking
causes a real and obvious SECURITY ISSUE.
Oh, come on, almost every kernel bug is a potential security issue.
IMHO, if the function can only fail due to a kernel bug, it should
return void and, in case of bug, explode with BUG_ON() or something
like that. Sure, must_check doesn't apply too well to void.
But, if I have functions which can fail for legitimate (not kernel
bug) reasons, and I know ignoring their return values would always
be a bug, then must_check seems an obvious best and simple defense
against that.
--
Krzysztof Halasa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [git patches] two warning fixes
- From: Linus Torvalds
- Re: [git patches] two warning fixes
- References:
- [git patches] two warning fixes
- From: Jeff Garzik
- Re: [git patches] two warning fixes
- From: Linus Torvalds
- [git patches] two warning fixes
- Prev by Date: Re: [kvm-devel] [RFC] Deferred interrupt handling.
- Next by Date: Re: new text patching for review
- Previous by thread: Re: [git patches] two warning fixes
- Next by thread: Re: [git patches] two warning fixes
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|