linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] ata: pata_macio: Use WARN instead of BUG

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87bk1osz9q.fsf@mail.lhotse>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2024 12:29:05 +1000
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@...nel.org>, cassel@...nel.org
Cc: linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, hch@....de, linux-ppc@...la.no,
 vidra@...l.mff.cuni.cz
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] ata: pata_macio: Use WARN instead of BUG

Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@...nel.org> writes:
> On 8/19/24 19:19, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> The overflow/underflow conditions in pata_macio_qc_prep() should never
>> happen. But if they do there's no need to kill the system entirely, a
>> WARN and failing the IO request should be sufficient and might allow the
>> system to keep running.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
>> ---
>>  drivers/ata/pata_macio.c | 7 +++++--
>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> 
>> Not sure if AC_ERR_OTHER is the right error code to use?
>
> Given that this would trigger if the command split has is buggy, I think that
> AC_ERR_SYSTEM would be better. Can you resend with the change and no "RFC" ?

Will do.

cheers