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

Message-ID: <20071215181254.GU17536@waste.org>
Date:	Sat, 15 Dec 2007 12:12:54 -0600
From:	Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make WARN_ON/WARN_ON_ONCE no-ops when CONFIG_BUG is off

On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 02:34:42PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 05:31:30PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >
> > That's something I've actually never quite liked... the fact that we
> > evaluate the expression anyway. I'm pretty happy with -not- evaluating
> > the expression when CONFIG_BUG is on most of the time since whatever is
> > in there is purely here for the sake of the BUG/WARN test.
> 
> Whether we evaluate the expression is a completely different debate.
> I personally agree with you that expressions that have side-effects
> are a stupid idea for either WARN_ON or BUG_ON.

As do I. But we can't really do anything about it short of auditing
them all.

-- 
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/