linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] xfs: add FALLOC_FL_ZERO

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 13 Jun 2012 08:24:12 +0200
From:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>, xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] xfs: add FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE to fallocate

Il 13/06/2012 04:16, Dave Chinner ha scritto:
>> > +	BUG_ON((mode & FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE) && (mode & FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE));
> Never put BUG_ON() or BUG() in XFS code that can return an error.
> Return EINVAL if we chose not to support it, and if it's really
> something we consider bad, emit a warning to syslog (i.e.
> xfs_warn()) and potentially add a ASSERT() case so that debug
> kernels will trip over it. Nobody should be panicing a production
> system just because a user supplied a set of incorrect syscall
> paramters....

I know, the BUG_ON() is because it is ruled out in VFS code.  Of course
if I remove that code, this will not be a BUG_ON() anymore.

Paolo

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/