netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 4/4] net: ipa: activate some commented assertions

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: <YFTAn7tHBAG2PO78@unreal>
Date:   Fri, 19 Mar 2021 17:17:51 +0200
From:   Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To:     Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org,
        evgreen@...omium.org, cpratapa@...eaurora.org, elder@...nel.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 4/4] net: ipa: activate some commented assertions

On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 07:40:21AM -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> On 3/19/21 12:00 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 11:29:23PM -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> > > Convert some commented assertion statements into real calls to
> > > ipa_assert().  If the IPA device pointer is available, provide it,
> > > otherwise pass NULL for that.
> > > 
> > > There are lots more places to convert, but this serves as an initial
> > > verification of the new mechanism.  The assertions here implement
> > > both runtime and build-time assertions, both with and without the
> > > device pointer.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>
> > > ---
> > >   drivers/net/ipa/ipa_reg.h   | 7 ++++---
> > >   drivers/net/ipa/ipa_table.c | 5 ++++-
> > >   2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/ipa/ipa_reg.h b/drivers/net/ipa/ipa_reg.h
> > > index 732e691e9aa62..d0de85de9f08d 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/ipa/ipa_reg.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/ipa/ipa_reg.h
> > > @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
> > >   #include <linux/bitfield.h>
> > >   #include "ipa_version.h"
> > > +#include "ipa_assert.h"
> > >   struct ipa;
> > > @@ -212,7 +213,7 @@ static inline u32 ipa_reg_bcr_val(enum ipa_version version)
> > >   			BCR_HOLB_DROP_L2_IRQ_FMASK |
> > >   			BCR_DUAL_TX_FMASK;
> > > -	/* assert(version != IPA_VERSION_4_5); */
> > > +	ipa_assert(NULL, version != IPA_VERSION_4_5);
> > 
> > This assert will fire for IPA_VERSION_4_2, I doubt that this is
> > something you want.
> 
> No, it will only fail if version == IPA_VERSION_4_5.
> The logic of an assertion is the opposite of BUG_ON().
> It fails only if the asserted condition yields false.

ok, this ipa_reg_bcr_val() is called in only one place and has a
protection from IPA_VERSION_4_5, why don't you code it at the same
.c file instead of adding useless assert?

> 
> 					-Alex
> 
> > 
> > Thanks
> > 
>