linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH/RFC] Deprecate BUG/BUG_ON in favour of BUG_AND_HALT/BUG_AND_HALT

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: <20140506093548.GA27476@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 6 May 2014 11:35:48 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
Cc:	Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>,
	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Deprecate BUG/BUG_ON in favour of
 BUG_AND_HALT/BUG_AND_HALT_ON


* Richard Weinberger <richard@....at> wrote:

> >> I like the idea but not the name.
> >> What about DIE() and DIE_ON()?
> > 
> > CRASH_ON() might be a suggestive name as well, as from the user's 
> > point of view we are crashing her system.
> 
> I fear such users will think "Why should I crash the kernel?". ;-)

That's exactly the impression that the naming should create in kernel 
developers why try to add CRASH_ON() in the future: only do it as an 
absolute last resort.

WARN_ON() and other non-destructive ways to deal with error conditions 
are almost always preferred.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/