linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] unlock before bug returns

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]

Message-ID: <20071022001045.131ea465@bree.surriel.com>
Date:	Mon, 22 Oct 2007 00:10:45 -0400
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	Roel Kluin <12o3l@...cali.nl>
Cc:	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] unlock before bug returns

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 04:58:45 +0200
Roel Kluin <12o3l@...cali.nl> wrote:

> Roel Kluin wrote:
> 
> >     unlock before bug returns
> 
> >  	if (cs >= GPMC_CS_NUM || !gpmc_cs_reserved(cs)) {
> >  		printk(KERN_ERR "Trying to free non-reserved GPMC
> > CS%d\n", cs);
> > -		BUG();
> >  		spin_unlock(&gpmc_mem_lock);
> > -		return;
> > +		BUG();
> 
> 
> should we bother to unlock before panicking, or is the unlock not
> required either?

BUG() kills the current process, but not the whole system.

Unlocking the lock means that the rest of the system has somewhat
of a chance of surviving.  Not unlocking means a guaranteed hang
for the rest of the system, making a BUG() no better than panic.

Please keep the unlock.

-- 
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan
-
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/