linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] coding-style.rst: document BUG() and WARN() rules ("do not crash the kernel")

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]

Message-ID: <0db131cf-013e-6f0e-c90b-5c1e840d869c@nvidia.com>
Date:   Wed, 24 Aug 2022 14:59:25 -0700
From:   John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@...il.com>,
        Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>,
        Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
        Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] coding-style.rst: document BUG() and WARN() rules
 ("do not crash the kernel")

On 8/24/22 09:30, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> index 03eb53fd029a..a6d81ff578fe 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
> @@ -1186,6 +1186,33 @@ expression used.  For instance:
>  	#endif /* CONFIG_SOMETHING */
>  

I like the idea of adding this documentation, and this is the right
place. Naturally, if one likes something, one must immediately change
it. :) Therefore, here is an alternative writeup that I think captures
what you and the email threads were saying.

How's this sound?

diff --git a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
index 03eb53fd029a..32df0d503388 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/coding-style.rst
@@ -1185,6 +1185,53 @@ expression used.  For instance:
        ...
        #endif /* CONFIG_SOMETHING */
 
+22) Do not crash the kernel
+---------------------------
+
+Use WARN() rather than BUG()
+****************************
+
+Do not add new code that uses any of the BUG() variants, such as BUG(),
+BUG_ON(), or VM_BUG_ON(). Instead, use a WARN*() variant, preferably
+WARN_ON_ONCE(), and possibly with recovery code. Recovery code is not required
+if there is no reasonable way to at least partially recover.
+
+Use WARN_ON_ONCE() rather than WARN() or WARN_ON()
+**************************************************
+
+WARN_ON_ONCE() is generally preferred over WARN() or WARN_ON(), because it is
+common for a given warning condition, if it occurs at all, to occur multiple
+times. (For example, once per file, or once per struct page.) This can fill up
+and wrap the kernel log, and can even slow the system enough that the excessive
+logging turns into its own, additional problem.
+
+Do not WARN lightly
+*******************
+
+WARN*() is intended for unexpected, this-should-never-happen situations. WARN*()
+macros are not to be used for anything that is expected to happen during normal
+operation. These are not pre- or post-condition asserts, for example. Again:
+WARN*() must not be used for a condition that is expected to trigger easily, for
+example, by user space actions. pr_warn_once() is a possible alternative, if you
+need to notify the user of a problem.
+
+Do not worry about panic_on_warn users
+**************************************
+
+A few more words about panic_on_warn: Remember that ``panic_on_warn`` is an
+available kernel option, and that many users set this option. This is why there
+is a "Do not WARN lightly" writeup, above. However, the existence of
+panic_on_warn users is not a valid reason to avoid the judicious use WARN*().
+That is because, whoever enables panic_on_warn has explicitly asked the kernel
+to crash if a WARN*() fires, and such users must be prepared to deal with the
+consequences of a system that is somewhat more likely to crash.
+
+Use BUILD_BUG_ON() for compile-time assertions
+**********************************************
+
+The use of BUILD_BUG_ON() is acceptable and encouraged, because it is a
+compile-time assertion that has no effect at runtime.


thanks,

-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA