linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Fix generic WARN

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20061025214257.GA2578@elf.ucw.cz>
Date:	Wed, 25 Oct 2006 23:42:57 +0200
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix generic WARN_ON message

On Wed 2006-10-25 16:55:22, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 12:04 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> > 
> > > * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > A warning is a warning, not a BUG.
> > > 
> > > > -		printk("BUG: warning at %s:%d/%s()\n", __FILE__,	\
> > > > +		printk("WARNING at %s:%d %s()\n", __FILE__,	\
> > > 
> > > i'm not really happy about this change.
> > > 
> > > Firstly, most WARN_ON()s are /bugs/, not warnings ... If it's a real 
> > > warning, a KERN_INFO printk should be done.
> > > 
> > > Secondly, the reason i changed it to the 'BUG: ...' format is that i 
> > > tried to make it easier for automated tools (and for users) to figure 
> > > out that a kernel bug happened.
> > 
> > Well... but the message is really bad. It leads to users telling us "I
> > hit BUG in kernel"...
> 
> But they *did* hit a BUG. It just so happens that the BUG was fixable.
> We want this reported because a WARN_ON should *never* be hit unless
> there's a bug.  If people start getting "WARNING" messages, they will
> more likely not be reporting them.
> 
> As Ingo already said, if it is just a "warning" then a normal printk
> should be used.

Fine, then why is the macro called WARN_ON()? That's certainly highly
confusing.

NONFATAL_BUG_ON()?

I hate people reporting BUG (or BUG()) when they hit WARN_ON(), and
current wording certainly makes it easy.
								Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
-
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/