linux-kernel - Re: [git pull] vfs part 2

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: <20150621213528.GP17109@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date:	Sun, 21 Jun 2015 22:35:28 +0100
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Andrey Ryabinin <a.ryabinin@...sung.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [git pull] vfs part 2

On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 02:16:15PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > +               if (count > rsize) {
> > +                       WARN_ON(1);
> > +                       count = rsize;
> > +               }
> 
> So if we'd actually want to merge it with the warning, I'd prefer writing it as
> 
>         if (WARN_ON_ONCE(count > rsize))
>               count = size;
> 
> because it's smaller and cannot spam your logs. WARN_ON_ONCE() will
> only _warn_ once, but it always returns the conditional for the
> warning, so the above does the right thing.

Sure, but I would really like to verify that this _is_ what's going on
there.  This is just a "please try that on your reproducer to make sure
that it's not something entirely different", thus the lack of S-o-b,
etc.  For the final variant (and we definitely should cope with BS from
server) we probably want to use p9_debug() instead of WARN_ON/WARN_ON_ONCE.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/