From: Daniel Micay <danielmicay@gmail.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fortify: Use WARN instead of BUG for now
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:57:20 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1501091840.1196.12.camel@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5jLrmEGYq7175DAopZNMGP3sP_1a95Fn7jzKcvRQar1S=A@mail.gmail.com>
> Maybe we could do two phases? One to s/BUG/WARN/ and the second to
> improve the message?
s/fortify_panic/fortify_overflow/ + use WARN + remove __noreturn makes
sense as one commit. Still think the *option* of __noreturn + BUG should
be kept there even just for measuring the size overhead. !COMPILE_TIME
&& EXPERT if it needs to be for now. If you're fully removing __noreturn
then the entry in tools/objtool/check.c for __noreturn functions also
won't make sense (either way it needs to use the new name).
I think improving error messages should be done a bit differently though
and it'll be easier to not tie these things together.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-07-26 17:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-26 3:50 [PATCH] fortify: Use WARN instead of BUG for now Kees Cook
2017-07-26 12:52 ` Daniel Micay
2017-07-26 17:21 ` Kees Cook
2017-07-26 17:57 ` Daniel Micay [this message]
2017-07-26 17:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2017-07-26 17:17 ` Kees Cook
2017-07-27 6:01 ` kbuild test robot
2017-07-27 16:48 ` Daniel Micay
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1501091840.1196.12.camel@gmail.com \
--to=danielmicay@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mchehab@kernel.org \
--cc=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox