netdev - Re: [GIT] Networking

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <CA+55aFybr6Fjti5WSm=FQpfwdwgH1Pcfg6L81M-Hd9MzuSHktg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:38:11 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
	Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT] Networking

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 6:39 AM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
>
>   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next.git master

Just going through the conflicts, I see commit 7193a141eb74 ("IB/mlx4:
Set VF to read from QP counters"), and wonder...

Is that code really supposed to fall through to the
infiniband-over-ethernet case when the link layer is
IB_LINK_LAYER_INFINIBAND but it's a slave?

The commit message is not in the least helpful.

On the *other* side of the same conflict, I find an even more
offensive commit, namely commit 4cd7c9479aff ("IB/mad: Add support for
additional MAD info to/from drivers") which adds a BUG_ON() for a
sanity check, rather than just returning -EINVAL or something sane
like that.

I'm getting *real* tired of that BUG_ON() shit. I realize that
infiniband is a niche market, and those "commercial grade" niche
markets are more-than-used-to crap code and horrible hacks, but this
is still the kernel. We don't add random machine-killing debug checks
when it is *so* simple to just do

        if (WARN_ON_ONCE(..))
                return -EINVAL;

instead.

Killing the machine for idiotic things like that is truly offensive,
and truly horrible horrible code. Why do I keep on having to tell
people off for doing these things? Why do people keep thinking that
debugging-by-killing-the-machine is a good idea?

Either that BUG_ON() cannot possibly happen, in which case it should
damn well not exist in the first place. Or it's a valuable debug aid,
in which case it should damn well not be a BUG_ON. You can't have it
both ways.

The next pointless BUG_ON() I see, I will start getting _really_
unpleasant about.

Doug, get rid of those things asap.

                    Linus
--
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