linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] staging: android: Replace BUG_ON with WARN

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200818142707.GA626703@kroah.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Aug 2020 16:27:07 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Tomer Samara <tomersamara98@...il.com>
Cc:     devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>,
        Martijn Coenen <maco@...roid.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Riley Andrews <riandrews@...roid.com>,
        Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
        Hridya Valsaraju <hridya@...gle.com>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] staging: android: Replace BUG_ON with WARN_ON

On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 05:19:40PM +0300, Tomer Samara wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 04:11:06PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 10:23:25PM +0300, Tomer Samara wrote:
> > > BUG_ON() is replaced with WARN_ON at ion_page_pool.c
> > 
> > Why?
> > 
> > > Fixes the following issue:
> > > Avoid crashing the kernel - try using WARN_ON & recovery code ratherthan BUG() or BUG_ON().
> > 
> > Ideally you can get rid of WARN_ON() too, right?
> > 
> > Many systems run in panic-on-warn mode, so this really does not change
> > anything.  Try fixing this up properly to not crash at all.
> > 
> You mean by that to just remove the WARN_ON and leave the condition the
> same?

Or fix the problem that could ever cause this check to fire.

thanks,

greg k-h