linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 02/11] soc/fsl: Introduce DPAA BMan device management driver

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: <BN3PR0301MB12673A340E327986F0BC39E58C9F0@BN3PR0301MB1267.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date:	Fri, 10 Jul 2015 20:57:53 +0000
From:	Roy Pledge <roy.pledge@...escale.com>
To:	Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>,
	Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
CC:	"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 02/11] soc/fsl: Introduce DPAA BMan device management
 driver

> 
> On Fri, 2015-07-10 at 13:36 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > On do, 2015-07-09 at 16:21 -0400, Roy Pledge wrote:
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_FSL_DPA_CHECKING
> > > +#define DPA_ASSERT(x) \
> > > +   do { \
> > > +           if (!(x)) { \
> > > +                   pr_crit("ASSERT: (%s:%d) %s\n", __FILE__, __LINE__, \
> > > +                           __stringify_1(x)); \
> > > +                   dump_stack(); \
> > > +                   panic("assertion failure"); \
> >
> > Not my call, but why panic() here?
> 
> I'm pretty sure I've complained about this before (as well as all the
> BUG_ONs).
> 
Is the concern here just the call to panic()?  I'm happy to change what happens when an issue is detected but the DPA_ASSERT() calls are very useful when testing changes to the driver and when bringing up the drivers on new silicon variants.