linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] bug: Fix CONFIG_BUG=n BUG

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:	Thu, 19 Jun 2014 19:51:42 +0200
From:	Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To:	josh@...htriplett.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bug: Fix CONFIG_BUG=n BUG_ON()

On 06/19/14 19:21, josh@...htriplett.org wrote:
> That's exactly what BUG_ON becomes if CONFIG_BUG=y, and that
> significantly increases kernel size; if you want that, set CONFIG_BUG=y.
> BUG_ON should continue to compile to nothing if CONFIG_BUG=n, or
> CONFIG_BUG=n has no reason to exist.

Hello Josh,

I wasn't aware that the current behavior of BUG_ON() with CONFIG_BUG=n
was intentional. The reason I started looking into this is because
different compiler warnings are generated for code with BUG_ON(1)
statements when building against a kernel with CONFIG_BUG=y or
CONFIG_BUG=n. There is an easy alternative though: changing BUG_ON(1)
into BUG() in my code.

Bart.

--
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/