[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7ea40c0e-e696-3537-c2a4-a8eccf4695d0@ispras.ru>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2022 19:14:43 +0300
From: Fedor Pchelkin <pchelkin@...ras.ru>
To: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Robin van der Gracht <robin@...tonic.nl>,
Oleksij Rempel <linux@...pel-privat.de>,
Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>,
Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Elenita Hinds <ecathinds@...il.com>,
Kurt Van Dijck <dev.kurt@...dijck-laurijssen.be>,
linux-can@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alexey Khoroshilov <khoroshilov@...ras.ru>,
ldv-project@...uxtesting.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] can: j1939: Remove unnecessary WARN_ON_ONCE in
j1939_sk_queue_activate_next_locked()
Hello Oleksij,
I'm sorry for late answering.
On 20.07.2022 22:13, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
>> Are you working on some system where this use case is valid?
No, we are fuzzing the kernel and analyzing different warnings and
crashes.
On 20.07.2022 22:13, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
> yes
Well, there is a long story about where and for which purposes the
kernel warning macros should be correctly used and, overall,
WARN_ON_ONCE is not intended for user-space notification.
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> WARN_ON() should only be used for "This cannot happen, but if it does,
> I want to know how we got here".
>
> So if that j1939 thing is something that can be triggered by a user,
> then the backtrace should be reported to the driver maintainer, and
> then either
>
> (a) the WARN_ON_ONCE() should just be removed ("ok, this can happen,
> we understand why it can happen, and it's fine")
>
> (b) the problem the WARN_ON_ONCE() reports about should be made
> impossible some way
>
> (c) it might be downgraded to a pr_warn() if people really want to
> tell user space that "guys, you're doing something wrong" and it's
> considered a useful warning.
So WARN_ON_ONCE should be replaced with a more gentle variant - I think
pr_warn_once would suit this case. I've prepared a new patch for that,
it will follow this email.
Could you also look at the patch - [PATCH] can: j1939: fix memory leak
of skbs - which I sent you on 08.07.2022, please?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists