linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <95c3cc5d-17e3-d19b-22f6-6a519f480143@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 23:39:13 +0300
From: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...il.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, cassel@...nel.org,
 dlemoal@...nel.org, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-ppc@...la.no, vidra@...l.mff.cuni.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ata: pata_macio: Use WARN instead of BUG

On 8/22/24 5:59 AM, Christoph Hellwig 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.
>>
>>    WARN*() can kill your system with panic_on_warn -- Android is particularly
>> fond of this kernel parameter but I guess it's not your case... :-)
>>    Greg KH usually advices against using these macros. :-)
> 
> And in this case he is simply totally wrong.  The whole poing of WARN_ON

   Greg does have a point: on billions of Linux systems (Android phones) that
all use panic_on_warn=1, WARN*() is pretty much equivalent to panic()... :-/

> is to have a standardized way to assert conditions.

   Hm, makes me remember assert() in C aborts a program... :-)

MBR, Sergey