Message-ID: <1501091840.1196.12.camel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fortify: Use WARN instead of BUG for now
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>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:57:20 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5jLrmEGYq7175DAopZNMGP3sP_1a95Fn7jzKcvRQar1S=A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170726035036.GA76341@beast>
         <1501073531.1196.7.camel@gmail.com>
         <CAGXu5jLrmEGYq7175DAopZNMGP3sP_1a95Fn7jzKcvRQar1S=A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 639
Lines: 12

> 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.