On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 9:45 PM, Kees Cook <[email protected]> wrote:
> The CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION() macro was designed to have callers do
> something meaningful/protective on failure. However, using "return false"
> in the macro too strictly limits the design patterns of callers. Instead,
> let callers handle the logic test directly, but make sure that the result
> IS checked by forcing __must_check (which appears to not be able to be
> used directly on macro expressions).
>
> Suggested-by: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <[email protected]>
The patch looks ok, but I have no memory of suggesting this. Was this an older
conversation we had that I already forgot, or did you confuse me with someone
else?
Arnd
