Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 10:53:07 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
        Syed Rameez Mustafa <rameezmustafa@...eaurora.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...ulusnetworks.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] bug: Provide toggle for BUG on data corruption

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 03:15:35PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:42:11 PM CEST Kees Cook wrote:
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Since detected data corruption should stop operation on the affected
> > + * structures, this returns false if the corruption condition is found.
> > + */
> > +#define CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(condition, fmt, ...)                      \
> > +       do {                                                             \
> > +               if (unlikely(condition)) {                               \
> > +                       if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BUG_ON_DATA_CORRUPTION)) { \
> > +                               pr_err(fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__);              \
> > +                               BUG();                                   \
> > +                       } else                                           \
> > +                               WARN(1, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__);             \
> > +                       return false;                                    \
> > +               }                                                        \
> > +       } while (0)
> > +
> 
> I think the "return false" inside of the macro makes it easy to misread
> what is actually going on.
> 
> How about making it a macro that returns the condition argument?
> 
> #define CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(condition, fmt, ...)	\
> ({	\
> 	bool _condition = unlikely(condition);	\
> 	if (_condition) {	\
> 		...
> 	}	\
> 	_condition;	\
> })

That does look better, now that you mention it.  Kees, any objections?

							Thanx, Paul

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.