On Fri 11-03-16 10:59:30, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > On 02/29/2016 02:26 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > >From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> > > > >All the callers of vm_mmap seem to check for the failure already > >and bail out in one way or another on the error which means that > > Hmm I'm not that sure about this one: > 17 1071 fs/binfmt_elf.c <<load_elf_binary>> > > Assigns result of vm_mmap() to "error" variable which is never checked. Yes it is not checked but not used either. If the current got killed then it wouldn't return to the userspace so my understanding is that not checking this value is not a problem. At least that is my understanding. > Shouldn't __must_check trigger here? well, __must_check is a misleading name. It doesn't actually enforce the value is checked. It just has to be used and an assignment is sufficient. I was discussing this without our gcc guy and he promissed to look and try to come up with a different attribute which would actually work like __must_check. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>