netdev - Re: [PATCH] mac80211: Fix TX after monitor interface is converted to managed

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 PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 4 Oct 2007 14:15:16 -0400
From:	"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>
To:	Michael Wu <flamingice@...rmilk.net>
Cc:	Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de>, Daniel Drake <dsd@...too.org>,
	johannes@...solutions.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mac80211: Fix TX after monitor interface is converted
	to managed

On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 01:11:33PM -0400, Michael Wu wrote:
> On Thursday 04 October 2007 11:19, John W. Linville wrote:
> > > The reason why BUG_ON exists is to catch bugs that happen, although
> > > they Should Never Happen (tm) ;)
> >
> > Precisely.

> No really, this bug will never happen. This is function is merely a helper 
> function which is called from interface removal code (where the interface 
> *has* to be down) or from changing the interface type (which ensures that the 
> interface is down first). There are an unlimited number of bugs which Should 
> Never Happen. That doesn't mean we should start adding BUG_ONs for every 
> single one of them. That gives some sort of protection against cosmic rays 
> flipping bits, but down here on earth, it's bloat.

Falling back on bloat as an argument against a BUG_ON in a
configuration path seems a bit weak. :-)

Programming with assertions (and BUG_ON is a form of that) is
generally a good practice.  Almost any book or other source on
good programming practices will agree.  Yes, it can be overdone.
But I don't really think that is the case here, since the check is
relatively inexpensive and the consequence should it ever *somehow*
happen could be a something wierd (crash, corruption, etc) w/o any
other indication of what occured.

Anyway, the point is probably moot in this case if there is no great
objection to the alternative patch I proposed.

John
-- 
John W. Linville
linville@...driver.com
-
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