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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YFUX/tteEzWcuYkG@lunn.ch>
Date:   Fri, 19 Mar 2021 22:30:38 +0100
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To:     Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>
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 Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 04:18:32PM -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> 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.

Hi Alex

What you really want to be looking at is adding a
WARN_ON_DEV(dev, condition) macro.

	 Andrew