Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 9 Oct 2019 16:56:33 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To:     Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Cc:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>,
        kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] string.h: Mark 34 functions with __must_check
Message-ID: <20191009135522.GA20194@kadam>
References: <75f70e5e-9ece-d6d1-a2c5-2f3ad79b9ccb@web.de>
 <954c5d70-742f-7b0e-57ad-ea967e93be89@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <954c5d70-742f-7b0e-57ad-ea967e93be89@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

[ I haven't reviewed the original patch ]

On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 03:26:18PM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On 09/10/2019 14.14, Markus Elfring wrote:
> > From: Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
> > Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 13:53:59 +0200
> > 
> > Several functions return values with which useful data processing
> > should be performed. These values must not be ignored then.
> > Thus use the annotation “__must_check” in the shown function declarations.
> 
> This _might_ make sense for those that are basically kmalloc() wrappers
> in one way or another [1]. But what's the point of annotating pure
> functions such as strchr, strstr, memchr etc? Nobody is calling those
> for their side effects (they don't have any...), so obviously the return
> value is used. If somebody does a strcmp() without using the result, so
> what? OK, it's odd code that might be worth flagging, but I don't think
> that's the kind of thing one accidentally adds.


	if (ret) {
		-EINVAL;
	}

People do occasionally make mistakes like this.  It can't hurt to
warn them as early as possible about nonsense code.


> You're also not consistent - strlen() is not annotated. And, for the
> standard C functions, -Wall already seems to warn about an unused
> call:
> 
>  #include <string.h>
> int f(const char *s)
> {
> 	strlen(s);
> 	return 3;
> }
> $ gcc -Wall -o a.o -c a.c
> a.c: In function ‘f’:
> a.c:5:2: warning: statement with no effect [-Wunused-value]
>   strlen(s);
>   ^~~~~~~~~

That's because glibc strlen is annotated with __attribute_pure__ which
means it has no side effects.

regards,
dan carpenter