Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAHk-=wjtZG_0zjgVt0_0JDZgq=xO4LHYAbH764HTQJsjHTq-oQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <bd43bd47c8eaa4c22c1a1549cee66f7ef960b1fc.camel@med.uni-goettingen.de>
 <CAHk-=whFMxks63sfMQ-0_YO1GsTmoLfsO4ciMtoiCHNgaG_+GA@mail.gmail.com>
 <979af7ae9b7e8baf080ef6f8d42d48d7f5d2c5b4.camel@tugraz.at>
 <CANiq72k_PUBPVL1Fx4HLm_WO66RuSsi0oSsKRhssCYRNGbY84Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <dc52af7ebc044c94337e138f6e1ae807559b4825.camel@tugraz.at> <CANiq72mcuXDRM-xMDPuL7uDLUfXDhARTBJJsVj4fnR15T1v=TA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANiq72mcuXDRM-xMDPuL7uDLUfXDhARTBJJsVj4fnR15T1v=TA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Tue, 1 Mar 2022 12:26:16 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wi+sjd8FT_FeJ2UOU2Ti7ws1i7hDweAW2gp8a-JpO-Tbg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 03/13] usb: remove the usage of the list iterator
 after the loop
To:     Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
Cc:     Martin Uecker <uecker@tugraz.at>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 5:50 AM Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But making it non-UB in the standard does not force a project to
> consider it "not an error", which is what actually matters for being
> able to use UBSan effectively or not.

Absolutely.

I think people should treat UBsan and friends a bit like "runtime lint".

"lint" traditionally doesn't necessarily check for just *incorrect* C.

It checks for things that can be confusing to humans, even if they are
100% completely conforming standard C.

Classic example: indentation. Having the wrong indentation is not in
any shape of form "undefined behavior" from a C standpoint, but it
sure is something that makes sense checking for anyway.

I think "integer overflow" should be considered the exact same thing.
It should *not* be treated as "undefined behavior", and it should not
give the compiler the option to generate code that doesn't match what
the programmer wrote.

But having a checking tool that says "This looks wrong - you just had
an integer overflow"? THAT makes 100% sense.

The C standard rules "undefined behavior" really is a problem in the standard.

                     Linus