On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 08:39:44AM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On 12/08/2020 23.51, Kees Cook wrote:
> > Since the destination variable of the check_*_overflow() helpers will
> > contain a wrapped value on failure, it would be best to make sure callers
> > really did check the return result
On 13/08/2020 13.23, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 02:51:52PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> +/*
>> + * Allows to effectively us apply __must_check to a macro so we can have
>> + * both the type-agnostic benefits of the macros while also being able to
>> + * enforce that the return
On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 02:51:52PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> +/*
> + * Allows to effectively us apply __must_check to a macro so we can have
> + * both the type-agnostic benefits of the macros while also being able to
> + * enforce that the return value is, in fact, checked.
> + */
> +static
On 12/08/2020 23.51, Kees Cook wrote:
> Since the destination variable of the check_*_overflow() helpers will
> contain a wrapped value on failure, it would be best to make sure callers
> really did check the return result of the helper. Adjust the macros to use
> a bool-wrapping static inline
Since the destination variable of the check_*_overflow() helpers will
contain a wrapped value on failure, it would be best to make sure callers
really did check the return result of the helper. Adjust the macros to use
a bool-wrapping static inline that is marked with __must_check. This means
the
5 matches
Mail list logo
