[lkml]   [2007]   [Jul]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [git patches] two warning fixes

    On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
    > >
    > > 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.

    Sure. And adding unnecessary checking that doesn't make sense makes bugs
    *more* likely rather than less.

    > 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.

    There are absolutely tons of functions that can return errors (or other
    values), and where many users MAY SIMPLY NOT CARE.

    I think "must_check" is an abomination. It makes the callee dictate what
    the caller has to do, but dammit, if the callee really "knows" its errors
    are that serious, it should damn well handle them itself.

    The whole "sysfs_create_file()" thing is an example of that. If it fails,
    it fails. The caller can't do anythign about it anyway, except perhaps
    print a message. Why the hell does such a function have the "right" to
    dictate what the user should do?

    That doesn't mean that *all* callers migth not care. Maybe some internal
    sysfs routines really should care. But not a random driver.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-07-19 20:02    [W:0.020 / U:1.608 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site