netdev - Re: net-2.6.24 failure with netconsole

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]

Date:	Wed, 22 Aug 2007 15:20:41 +0800
From:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org (Andrew Morton)
Cc:	davem@...emloft.net, shemminger@...ux-foundation.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: net-2.6.24 failure with netconsole

Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> David, there's basically no reason ever why anyone should add BUG() or
> BUG_ON() to net code.  Please consider rejecting any patches which add new
> ones.  WARN_ON() is *much* better.  It at least gives the user a chance of
> getting some disgnostic info out, of performing additional tests or even of
> using their kernel if they want to test something else.  The only reason to
> choose BUG over WARN is if we're actually concerned about scrogging
> people's data, or serious things like that (ie: filesystems and mm).

Well, for networking if we continue after a serious coding
error it could result in a remote kernel compromise.  So
BUG_ON/BUG is not entirely useless.

I'm not claiming that it's necessarily the case here though :)

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html