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]
Date:   Fri, 21 Aug 2020 09:25:26 -0700
From:   Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To:     Tomer Samara <tomersamara98@...il.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
        Riley Andrews <riandrews@...roid.com>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
        Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>,
        Martijn Coenen <maco@...roid.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        Hridya Valsaraju <hridya@...gle.com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] staging: android: Remove BUG from
 ion_system_heap.c

On 8/21/20 8:28 AM, Tomer Samara wrote:
> Remove BUG() from ion_sytem_heap.c
> 
> this fix the following checkpatch issue:
> Avoid crashing the kernel - try using WARN_ON &
> recovery code ratherthan BUG() or BUG_ON().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tomer Samara <tomersamara98@...il.com>
> ---
>  drivers/staging/android/ion/ion_system_heap.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/android/ion/ion_system_heap.c b/drivers/staging/android/ion/ion_system_heap.c
> index eac0632ab4e8..00d6154aec34 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/android/ion/ion_system_heap.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/android/ion/ion_system_heap.c
> @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ static int order_to_index(unsigned int order)
>  	for (i = 0; i < NUM_ORDERS; i++)
>  		if (order == orders[i])
>  			return i;
> -	BUG();
> +	/* This is impossible. */
>  	return -1;
>  }

Hi,
Please explain why this is impossible.

If some caller calls order_to_index(5), it will return -1, yes?

-- 
~Randy

Powered by blists - more mailing lists