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]

Date:	Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:52:18 -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 12:16:59PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 12:02:46PM -0600, Matt Mackall wrote:
> >
> > I added CONFIG_BUG, and I think the current behavior is correct. As
> > you've noticed, we have to evaluate condition, it may have
> > side-effects. And if code does:
> > 
> > 	/* this indicates a driver bug, report and fail gracefully */
> > 	if (WARN_ON(val == NULL))
> > 		return -EFAULT;
> 
> That's exactly the sort of use I had in mind :) I'm actually the
> one who added the ability to use WARN_ON inside an if clause.
> 
> Just as the case of a BUG_ON, a WARN_ON should never occur in
> practice, unless there is a bug which the code is not aware of.

Agreed.

> As such we want it to go away completely if CONFIG_BUG is off.

No. The code as written above should reduce to:

	if (val == NULL)
		return -EFAULT;

If I hadn't wanted to return -EFAULT in this case, I would have just written:

	WARN_ON(val == NULL);

I don't want code that was running safely (ie returning -EFAULT) to
start crashing the system just because I've, say, disabled printk.
That's creating an obnoxious heisenbug.

> > ..we surely want it to continue returning -EFAULT, regardless of
> > whether we log it, no? What use case did you have in mind?
> 
> If you're using it for a scenario which is known to actually
> occur, then some other mechanism should be chosen in place of
> WARN_ON.

Then I kindly submit that you should instead withdraw the code that
allows you to use WARN_ON in a condition in the first place.

Note that Dave Jones is currently poking at making WARN_ON
out-of-line, so you're liable to collide with him.

-- 
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/