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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20200224124732.GA694161@kroah.com>
Date:   Mon, 24 Feb 2020 13:47:32 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
        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 Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 11:01:09AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Linus,
> 
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 1:38 AM Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > 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
> >
> > 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.
> 
> And if we follow that advice, friendly Greg will respond with:
> "We really do not want WARN_ON() anywhere, as that causes systems with
>  panic-on-warn to reboot."
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20191121135743.GA552517@kroah.com/

Yes, we should not have any WARN_ON calls for something that userspace
can trigger, because then syzbot will trigger it and we will get an
annoying report saying to fix it :)

thanks,

greg k-h