Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 4 Aug 2020 23:45:44 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc:     Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leon@kernel.org>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] saturate check_*_overflow() output?
Message-ID: <20200804224544.GK23808@casper.infradead.org>
References: <202008031118.36756FAD04@keescook>
 <f177a821-74a3-e868-81d3-55accfb5b161@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
 <202008041137.02D231B@keescook>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <202008041137.02D231B@keescook>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Aug 04, 2020 at 12:23:03PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > What we might do, to deal with the "caller fails to check the result",
> > is to add a
> > 
> > static inline bool __must_check must_check_overflow(bool b) { return
> > unlikely(b); }
> > 
> > and wrap all the final "did it overflow" results in that one - perhaps
> > also for the __builtin_* cases, I don't know if those are automatically
> > equipped with that attribute. [I also don't know if gcc propagates
> > likely/unlikely out to the caller, but it shouldn't hurt to have it
> > there and might improve code gen if it does.]
> 
> (What is the formal name for the ({ ...; return_value; }) C construct?)

'Statement Exprs'.

A compound statement enclosed in parentheses may appear as an expression
in GNU C.  This allows you to use loops, switches, and local variables
within an expression.