linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 4/4] net: ipa: activate some commented assertions

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, 19 Mar 2021 16:18:32 -0500
From:   Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org,
        evgreen@...omium.org, cpratapa@...eaurora.org, elder@...nel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 4/4] net: ipa: activate some commented assertions

On 3/19/21 1:32 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> @@ -212,7 +213,7 @@ static inline u32 ipa_reg_bcr_val(enum ipa_version version)
>>   			BCR_HOLB_DROP_L2_IRQ_FMASK |
>>   			BCR_DUAL_TX_FMASK;
>>   
>> -	/* assert(version != IPA_VERSION_4_5); */
>> +	ipa_assert(NULL, version != IPA_VERSION_4_5);
> 
> Hi Alex
> 
> It is impossible to see just looking what the NULL means. And given
> its the first parameter, it should be quite important. I find this API
> pretty bad.

I actually don't like the first argument.  I would have
supplied the main IPA pointer, but that isn't always
visible or available (the GSI code doesn't have the
IPA pointer definition).  So I thought instead I could
at least supply the underlying device if available,
and use dev_err().

But I wouldn't mind just getting rid of the first
argument and having a failed assertion always call
pr_err() and not dev_err().

The thing of most value to me the asserted condition.

Thoughts?

					-Alex