[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANiq72k7_GbFwRxW5vikF_SpiNcNm7Ff0oe6jyYX_voDg92QFA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2025 21:43:24 +0200
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org>, Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>,
Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>,
Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] rust: error: replace `WARN_ON_ONCE` comment with `debug_assert!`
On Fri, Aug 29, 2025 at 9:23 PM Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Thus, instead, use a debug assertion -- this assumes hitting one of them
> is not going to be considered a CVE (which requires
> `CONFIG_RUST_DEBUG_ASSERTIONS=y`).
Greg: RFC on this -- this is the usual conundrum around `WARN`. I
would like to have an assertion or `WARN`-like entity for developers
that doesn't imply CVEs when hit by user interactions. More generally,
to know that such a config option is OK as long as it is labeled
clearly a debug one like this one (we can document the CVE bit
explicitly if needed).
Thanks!
Cheers,
Miguel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists