linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND] bug: When !CONFIG_BUG, simplify WARN_ON

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: <20140224131605.3bd7febc@alan.etchedpixels.co.uk>
Date:	Mon, 24 Feb 2014 13:16:05 +0000
From:	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] bug: When !CONFIG_BUG, simplify WARN_ON_ONCE and
 family

> BUG() normally causes a fault and we print helpful messages before killing
> the task, and gcc knows we never continue because of the
> __builtin_unreachable() annotation.
> 
> If BUG() is defined as 'do { } while (0)' in the example above, we get
> a warning because the function may end without returning a number.
> If we define it to 'do { unreachable(); } while (0)', we don't get a
> warning, but we can get undefined behavior in the case we ever get to
> the end of the function.

That warning is the right thing though. In a lot of cases BUG(); is
followed by code that can lead to serious corruption and potentially
things like disk corruption following or security compromise.

We *should* be warning if you are stupid enough to build a kernel where
BUG() does not terminate.

While I agree defining it as do {} while(1); would be a lot smarter,
simply making it required that a platform provides an implementation of
BUG() would be even better. 

Alan
--
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/