netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: page

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: <79f8905a-0eb7-4203-bdc7-fa77c25e79ea@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2024 15:28:21 +0200
From: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
To: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
CC: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>, Ilias Apalodimas
	<ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, "Eric
 Dumazet" <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni
	<pabeni@...hat.com>, Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: page_pool: fix warning code

From: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2024 15:14:53 +0200

> On 7/5/24 14:39, Johannes Berg wrote:
>> On Fri, 2024-07-05 at 14:37 +0200, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
>>> From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
>>> Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2024 14:33:31 +0200
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 2024-07-05 at 14:32 +0200, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
>>>>> From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
>>>>> Date: Fri,  5 Jul 2024 13:42:06 +0200
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WARN_ON_ONCE("string") doesn't really do what appears to
>>>>>> be intended, so fix that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Fixes:" tag?
>>>>
>>>> There keep being discussions around this so I have no idea what's the
>>>> guideline-du-jour ... It changes the code but it's not really an issue?
>>>
>>> Hmm, it's an incorrect usage of WARN_ON() (a string is passed instead of
>>> a warning condition),
>>
>> Well, yes, but the intent was clearly to unconditionally trigger a
>> warning with a message, and the only thing getting lost is the message;
>> if you look up the warning in the code you still see it. But anyway, I
>> don't care.
>>
> 
> for the record, [1] tells: to the -next
> 
> [1]
> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20240704072155.2ea340a9@kernel.org/T/#m919e75afc977fd250ec8c4fa37a2fb1e5baadd3f

But there you have "the exact same binary getting generated", while here
you clearly have functional and binary changes :>

I'd even say it may confuse readers and make someone think that you
should pass a string there, not a condition (weak argument, I know).

> 
>> The tag would be
>>
>> Fixes: 90de47f020db ("page_pool: fragment API support for 32-bit arch
>> with 64-bit DMA")
>>
>> if anyone wants it :)
>>
>> johannes

Thanks,
Olek