linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] mm/memory_hotplug: Drop mem_blk check from unregister_mem_sect_under

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: <292e9b31-b043-d140-77da-03082025fa1b@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Aug 2018 12:09:14 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...hadventures.net>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mhocko@...e.com,
        dan.j.williams@...el.com, jglisse@...hat.com, rafael@...nel.org,
        yasu.isimatu@...il.com, logang@...tatee.com, dave.jiang@...el.com,
        Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com, vbabka@...e.cz, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] mm/memory_hotplug: Drop mem_blk check from
 unregister_mem_sect_under_nodes

On 14.08.2018 12:06, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 11:44:50AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>
>> Yes I know, as I said, if it would be local to a file I would not care.
>> Making this functions never return an error is nice, though (and as you
>> noted, the return value is never checked).
>>
>> I am a friend of stating which conditions a function expects to hold if
>> a function can be called from other parts of the system. Usually I
>> prefer to use BUG_ONs for that (whoever decides to call it can directly
>> see what he as to check before calling) or comments. But comments tend
>> to become obsolete.
> 
> Uhm, I think a BUG_ON is too much here.
> We could replace the check with a WARN_ON, just in case
> a new function decides to call unregister_mem_sect_under_nodes() in the future.
> 
> Something like:
> 
> WARN_ON(!mem_blk)
> 	return;
> 
> In that case, we should get a nice splat in the logs that should tell us
> who is calling it with an invalid mem_blk.
> 

Whatever you think is best. I have no idea what the general rules in MM
code are. Maybe dropping this check is totally fine.

-- 

Thanks,

David / dhildenb