linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Make WARN_ON/WARN_ON_ONCE no-ops when CONFIG

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: <20071215175443.GU19691@waste.org>
Date:	Sat, 15 Dec 2007 11:54:43 -0600
From:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make WARN_ON/WARN_ON_ONCE no-ops when CONFIG_BUG is off

On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 02:52:11PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 02:04:49PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> >
> > I suppose we'll have to either introduce a new primitive or just
> > go back to using BUG_ON.
> 
> Let's do the conservative thing and add a new primitive.
> 
> [PATCH] Added BARF_ON/BARF_ON_ONCE
> 
> The description of CONFIG_BUG clearly states that both BUG and
> WARN_ON may be skipped.  However, our actual implementation still
> checks the condition on WARN_ON if it's used as part of an if
> statement or such.
> 
> I tried to compile it away but Matt Mackall pointed out that
> people may already be using it in ways that were not intended.
> In particular, it may have been used for conditions that are
> thought to be possible.
> 
> So this patch adds a new pair of macros BARF_ON and BARF_ON_ONCE
> that are clearly marked as such to prevent abuse.  The intended
> usage model is identical to WARN_ON except that they should only
> be used for conditions that are thought to be impossible.  In
> other words, only use them to replace BUG_ON's that may be called
> by an IRQ handler or within locks.

Egads, this just makes the whole bad BUG_ON vs WARN_ON situation
worse. This adds yet another non-distinction, because the difference
between BUG_ON and WARN_ON has absolutely nothing to do with the
(perceived or actual) probability of the condition.

We've got plenty of evidence that BUG_ON and WARN_ON conditions -do-
happen. So choosing between BUG_ON and WARN_ON is choosing whether a
box should be forcibly killed or not and nothing more.

You've clearly got a use-case in mind where WARN_ON + !CONFIG_BUG
isn't doing what you want, please share it with us.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
--
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/