linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] cifs: Implement cache I/O by accessing the cache directly

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, 28 Jan 2022 00:58:06 +0000
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>
Cc:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
        Shyam Prasad N <nspmangalore@...il.com>,
        CIFS <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>, linux-cachefs@...hat.com,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] cifs: Implement cache I/O by accessing the cache
 directly

On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 06:55:23PM -0600, Steve French wrote:
> Regression tests so far on Dave's cifs fscache patch series are going
> fine.  First series of tests I ran were this:
> http://smb3-test-rhel-75.southcentralus.cloudapp.azure.com/#/builders/11/builds/160
> but I have to run additional tests with fscache enabled etc.
> 
> I saw that checkpatch had some minor complaints on this patch (patch
> 4) which I cleaned up, but was wondering other's thoughts on this
> checkpatch warning:
> 
> WARNING: Avoid crashing the kernel - try using WARN_ON & recovery code
> rather than BUG() or BUG_ON()
> #101: FILE: fs/cifs/file.c:4449:
> 
> ie
> 
> + page = readahead_page(ractl);
> + BUG_ON(!page);

Just remove it.  The kernel will crash just fine without putting in an
explicit BUG_ON, and it'll be obvious what the problem is.